STATE OF OHIO v. TIMOTHY REINER
No. 103775
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
August 25, 2016
[Cite as State v. Reiner, 2016-Ohio-5520.]
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
BEFORE: E.T. Gallagher, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and Blackmon, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 25, 2016
Joseph V. Pagano
P.O. Box 16869
Rocky River, Ohio 44116
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Diane Smilanick
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Timothy Reiner (“Reiner“), appeals from the trial court‘s denial of his application to seal certain criminal court records pursuant to
- The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant‘s motion to seal records under
R.C. 2953.52 .
{¶2} After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
I. Procedural History
{¶3} In July 2002, Reiner was charged by information with two counts of attempted aggravated murder of a police officer in violation of
{¶4} In November 2012, the trial court terminated Reiner‘s commitment without objection from the state. In February 2015, Reiner filed an application to seal the record of his arrest pursuant to
{¶5} At the hearing, Reiner indicated that despite having an accounting degree, he was working at a minimum wage job and was unable to find suitable employment due to the public
{¶6} Following the hearing, the trial court issued a journal entry denying Reiner‘s application to seal the record of his arrest, stating, in pertinent part:
After hearing from the parties and considering all of the evidence in this matter, the defendant‘s motion for sealing the records of arrest pursuant to
R.C. 29953.52 * * * is denied.
{¶7} Reiner now appeals from the trial court‘s judgment.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Reiner argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to seal records pursuant to
{¶9}
{¶10} If the court determines, after complying with division (B)(2), that (1) the complaint, indictment, or information in the case was dismissed, (2) that no criminal proceedings are pending against the person, and (3) that the interest of the person having the records pertaining to the case are not outweighed by any legitimate governmental needs to maintain such records, then “the
{¶11} Relevant to the circumstances of this case,
{¶12} Generally, we will not reverse a trial court‘s decision concerning an application filed under
{¶13} In this case, it is undisputed that Reiner was found not guilty of all charges by reason of insanity and that there were no criminal proceedings pending against him at the time of the October 2015 hearing. Moreover, the trial court‘s journal entry reflects that it considered all evidence and adequately balanced the competing interests of the parties before determining that Reiner‘s interest in obtaining gainful employment was not outweighed by the legitimate needs of the government to maintain the records. Thus, the only issue before this court is whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Reiner‘s interest in having his arrest record sealed were outweighed by the state‘s legitimate governmental need to maintain the record.
{¶14} In challenging the trial court‘s judgment, Reiner argues the state failed to articulate “a legitimate interest in keeping the record open because it only relied upon the nature of the charges as its sole objection to the motion.” We disagree with Reiner‘s characterization of the state‘s objection.
{¶16} Given the nature of the charges, the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the police officers, and Reiner‘s history of mental illness, it was not unreasonable for the trial court to “put transparency and the government‘s awareness of the charges” ahead of Reiner‘s personal interests. See State v. Myers, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2015-CA-88, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 2659 (July 8, 2016). While Reiner was not convicted of the attempted murder offenses at issue, we find the government has a substantial interest in preserving public and police safety by maintaining Reiner‘s arrest record and providing the police with all relevant information in the event they are required to interact with Reiner in the future. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reiner‘s application to seal his arrest record.
{¶17} Reiner‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶18} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of said appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR