Case Information
*1
[Cite as
State v. A.S.
,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-220259
TRIAL NO. 18CRB-19780 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
:
VS . O P I N I O N.
:
A.S., :
Defendant-Appellant. : Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 28, 2022
Emily Smart Woerner , Interim City Solicitor, William T. Horsley , Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Rebecca Barnett , Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff- Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller , Hamilton County Public Defender , and Krista Gieske , Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
*2
B ERGERON , Presiding Judge.
{¶1} In 2018, defendant-appellant A.S. entered a guilty plea to one count of misdemeanor theft. A few years later, in 2021, A.S. sought to seal the record of her conviction in order to facilitate educational and professional opportunities. Although the state did not object, the trial court refused to seal the record, relying on arguments the state never advanced and that run afoul of the record at hand. A.S. now appeals, asserting in her sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in finding that a governmental interest outweighed her interest in having the record sealed. We agree, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand this cause with instructions for the trial court to seal the record.
I. In July 2018, A.S. was charged by criminal complaint with one count of
petty theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02, a first-degree misdemeanor. Her only offense was switching the price tags on a comforter set at Target, designed to save herself a little money. In October 2018, after having found A.S. eligible for diversion, the trial court ordered her to participate for six months in the Hamilton County Diversion Program established in accordance with R.C. 2935.36. In conjunction with this order, A.S. entered a guilty plea to the theft offense as charged. In February 2019, on motion by the state, the trial court issued an entry
reinstating A.S. ’s case to the court’s active docket following her failure to complete the diversion program. According to the court’s entr y, A.S. had failed to fulfill the following conditions of the program: attend an N.C.T.I. Critical Thinking Class by January 2019; pay an administrative fee of $133; complete 60 community-service hours; and attend monthly meetings. In August 2019, the trial court sentenced A.S. to *3 a suspended 180-day jail term and six months of community control. Six months later, in February 2019, the trial court terminated A.S. ’s community control.
{¶4} Three years after her offense, in July 2021, A.S. filed her first application to seal the record of her theft conviction. The trial court denied the request, but indicated that it might be open to further requests down the road. A.S. accordingly filed a second application to seal the record of her conviction in March 2022. This application, too, was denied by the trial court after a hearing. Although the state did not object to sealing the record, the trial court concluded that the government’s interest in maintaining the record as public outweighed A.S. ’s interest in seal ing the record. This appeal followed.
II. In her sole assignment of error, A.S. maintains that the trial court erred
in denying her application to seal the record of her misdemeanor theft conviction. “In
Ohio, sealing an individual’s criminal record is an act of grace ” created by the state.
State v. R.S.
, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-210169, C-210170, C-210171, C-210172, and C-
210173,
deny an application to seal a record of conviction, an “eligible offender” may apply to *4 the sentencing court for the sealing of a criminal record. “A court may grant an application if the requirements identified by R.C. 2953.32(C)(1) are satisfied.” R.S. at ¶ 10, citing Sager at ¶ 10. After determining whether the applicant is an eligible offender, R.C. 2953.32(C)(1) requires the trial court to make determinations, including whether criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant, whether the applicant has been rehabilitated, and whether the interests of the applicant in having his or her record sealed outweigh the legitimate needs, if any, of the government. “After weighing the interests of the applicant and government, the court ‘shall order all official records of the case’ sealed if the ‘legitimate government needs to maintain those records’ do not outweigh the applicant’s interest in sealing her records.” R.S. at ¶ 11, quoting R.C. 2932(C)(2). R.C. 2953.32 is a “remedial statute , ” R.S. at ¶ 10, that is “construe d
liberally to promote [its] purpose and assist the parties in obtaining justice. ”
State v.
Young
, 5th Dist. Morrow No. 2021 CA 0009,
[P]eople make mistakes, but * * * afterwards they regret their conduct and are older, wiser and sadder. The enactment and amendment of R.C. 2953.31 and 2953.32 is, in a way, a manifestation of the traditional Western civilization concepts of sin, punishment, atonement, and forgiveness. Although rehabilitation is not favored in current penal *5 thought, the unarguable fact is that some people do rehabilitate themselves. Moreover, considering the real-world effects of prior convictions can
help contextualize applicants’ interests i n having their records sealed . “The
consequences of ‘a misdemeanor conviction today are real and significant.’ ”
R.S
., 1st
Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-210169, C-210170, C-210171, C-210172, and C-210173, 2022-
Ohio-1108, at ¶ 30, quoting
City of Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis
,
interest in promoting the positive consequences that can flow from record sealing. For instance, the government has compelling interests in “reducing recidivism, facilitating reintegration, and ensuring self-sufficiency by promoting employment and housing opportunities for former criminal defendants ,” all of which are furthered, in appropriate cases, by record sealing. Pon at 315. “ Where there is persuasive evidence that employers and housing authorities consider criminal history in making decisions, there is now a fully articulated governmental interest in shielding criminal history *6 information from these decision makers where so doing would not cause adverse consequences to the community at large.” Id .
{¶10}
R.C. 2953.32 provides persons with qualifying offenses who have
demonstrated rehabilitation with a second chance, so that they can avoid these
collateral consequences of a criminal record and the associated obstacles to becoming
a thriving and productive member of society.
See R.S.
at ¶ 10, quoting
Sager
, 2019-
Ohio-135,
{¶11} Turning now to the case at hand, A.S. asserts that the trial court’s determination that the government’s interest in maintaining her record as public outweighed her interest in having the record sealed constitutes an abuse of discretion. On appeal, the state agrees, declining to defend the judgment below. “ Under R.C. 2953.32(C)(1)(e), the court must weigh the applicant’s
interest in sealing the applicant’s record against the ‘legitimate needs,
if any
, of the
governmen t.’ ” (Emphasis added)
R.S.
at ¶ 26, quoting R.C. 2953.32(C)(1)(e). The
applicant has the burden “of demonstrating that [her] interests in having the records
in the case sealed are at least equal to the legitimate governmental need to maintain
the record .”
State v. Haney
, 70 Ohio App.3d 135, 139, 590 N.E.2d 445 (10th
Dist.1991). Among other evidence, an applicant can satisfy this burden with
“testimony that [her] conviction has damaged [her] ability to earn a living.”
State v.
Shaffer
, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2009-G-2929,
maintenance outweighed A.S. ’s interest in having the record sealed, every relevant *7 consideration in the record points in the other direction. A.S. has a strong interest in sealing the record of her conviction. Over the past few years, she has gone from working in a factory to obtaining employment as a state tested nurse aide. Her new job has been jeopardized by increasing employer reliance on background checks. Furthermore, A.S. seeks to obtain further education to become a registered nurse. However, the Ohio Medical Career College viewed her theft conviction as a potential barrier to her certification as a nurse, and suggested that it would deny her admission unless her conviction was sealed. A.S. also has two young daughters to provide for. At her hearing, A.S. presented a clear showing of economic, career, and family-oriented interests in having her record sealed. A.S. has had no further contact with the criminal justice system since
her conviction, her conviction was for a misdemeanor, and the stigma of her conviction
may well prevent her from furthering her education or job opportunities. Her case, in
other words, is the quintessential one where we want the individual to be able to
pursue her dreams and benefit the community in the process. Recognizing this, the
state declined to offer any interests whatsoever in response and did not oppose the
sealing of the record . And in fact, the state concedes that “the record reflects that [ A.S.]
is seeking that her record be sealed in order to pursue further education and
employment, and
thus has a greater interest
in seali ng the conviction.” The trial determined sua sponte that “there’s a government interest in
maintaining public access, full public open access to court records such as this. In this
case, I think there’s an interest in * * * employers having access to records such as
this.” According to the trial court, the government’s interest is that a petty theft
conviction could be relevant to any line of work involving trust, including A.S. ’s pursuit
*8
of a career in the healthcare field. But the nature of the offen se “cannot provide the
sole basis to deny an application.”
R.S.
, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-210169, C-210170,
C-210171, C-210172, and C-210173,
* * * In light of the foregoing analysis, we sustain A.S. ’s sole assignment of
error. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to seal the record of A.S. ’s misdemeanor petty theft conviction.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
C ROUSE and B OCK , JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.