State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hubert Young, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19AP-49
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
August 6, 2019
[Cite as State v. Young, 2019-Ohio-3161.]
(C.P.C. No. 98CR-6650) (REGULAR CALENDAR)
KLATT, P.J.
Rendered on August 6, 2019
On brief: Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael P. Walton, for appellant. Argued: Michael P. Walton.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
{1} Plaintiff-appellant, State of Ohio, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting the application of defendant-appellee, Hubert Young, to seal the record of his prior conviction. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
{2} On November 30, 1998, a Franklin County Grand Jury indicted appellee on one count of theft, in violation of
{3} On July 5, 2018, appellee filed his “Application for Order Sealing Record of Conviction” pursuant to
{4} On November 29, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on appellee‘s application. Appellee appeared pro se at the hearing and averred that he “looked into the - -the restitution that‘s owed.” (Nov. 29, 2018 Tr. at 3.) He explained that he contacted State Farm and was told it “had sold this debt in 2008 to a collection firm [and] the only thing they could tell me is what they had received already, which was $1,035 out of the debt I think.” Id. Appellee stated that State Farm provided the name of the collection firm; however, he subsequently learned that the collection firm was no longer in business. According to appellee, the original collection firm was purchased by another firm in 2011 or 2012; appellee contacted the new firm and was told “they don‘t even handle this type of stuff anymore.” Id. at 4. Upon the trial court‘s inquiry, appellee admitted that he had no documentation to support his contentions.
{5} The trial court then explained that it could not grant appellee‘s application if he had not paid his court-ordered restitution. In response, appellee stated that State Farm informed him that it had reimbursed the victim $500. Appellee further averred that State Farm “gave me a number” and “what I came up with was $3,800 and some change is what I actually owed“; however, State Farm could not accept payment from appellee because it no longer held the debt. Id. at 5. Following this exchange, the trial court continued the matter to allow appellee the opportunity to provide documentation demonstrating how much restitution had been paid and whether State Farm still had an interest in the debt. The prosecutor did not object to the continuance.
{7} On January 17, 2019, the trial court issued a judgment entry sealing the record of appellee‘s conviction. Appellant timely appealed to this court from the trial court‘s judgment and assigns the following as trial court error:
THE TRIAL COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE APPLICATION TO SEAL THE RECORD OF CONVICTION, WHERE DEFENDANT HAD NOT RECEIVED A FINAL DISCHARGE WITHIN THE MEANING OF R.C. 2953.32.
{8} An appellate court generally reviews a trial court‘s decision on an
{9} In its single assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant appellee‘s application. More specifically, appellant contends appellee still owed restitution for his offense and thus had not received a “final discharge” pursuant to
{10} A trial court may grant an application to seal a record of conviction only when all statutory requirements for eligibility are met. State v. Martin, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-582, 2015-Ohio-1557, ¶ 8, citing State v. Brewer, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-464, 2006-Ohio-6991, ¶ 5. Pursuant to
{11} The Supreme Court of Ohio has determined that “the final discharge required by
{12} Where the offender was convicted of one felony, the “[a]pplication may be made at * * * the expiration of three years after the offender‘s final discharge.”
{13} Appellant‘s argument is that appellee has yet to obtain final discharge because he has not paid full restitution to State Farm. However, at the January 17, 2019 hearing, appellee provided documentary evidence from State Farm which established, to the trial court‘s satisfaction, that appellee satisfied his restitution obligation to State Farm as of December 27, 2018. Although the record does not include this documentary evidence, the record does establish that the trial court reviewed it and thereafter concluded that it sufficiently established that appellee had paid the restitution owed State Farm. We must presume the regularity in the trial court proceedings. Studley v. Biehl, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-11, 2018-Ohio-2274, ¶ 13.
{14} However, based upon this evidence, the earliest appellee could have obtained final discharge was December 27, 2018. Appellee filed his application to seal the record of his felony conviction on July 5, 2018. Appellee clearly filed his application prematurely under
{15} Having determined the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellee‘s prematurely filed application to seal the record of his felony conviction, we sustain appellant‘s sole assignment of error, reverse the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, and remand this matter to that court to vacate the order sealing the record.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
BEATTY BLUNT and NELSON, JJ., concur.