Strongsville v. J.M.B. , 2014 Ohio 3144 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Strongsville v. J.M.B., 
    2014-Ohio-3144
    .]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    No. 100680
    CITY OF STRONGSVILLE
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
    vs.
    J.M.B.
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
    JUDGMENT:
    REVERSED AND REMANDED
    Civil Appeal from the
    Berea Municipal Court
    Case No. 10-CRB-00899
    BEFORE: Keough, J., Rocco, P.J., and Stewart, J.
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 17, 2014
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
    Richard Agopian
    1415 West Ninth Street, Second Floor
    Cleveland, Ohio 44113
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
    George F. Lonjak
    Prosecutor, City of Strongsville
    16099 Foltz Parkway
    Strongsville, Ohio 44149
    KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
    {¶1} Defendant-appellant J.M.B. appeals from the municipal court’s judgment
    denying her application to seal the record of her conviction. Finding merit to the appeal,
    we reverse and remand.
    I. Background
    {¶2} In February 2011, J.M.B. was convicted in the Berea Municipal Court of a
    drug paraphernalia offense in violation of R.C. 2925.14 in Case No. 10-CRB-00899, and
    reckless operation in Case No. 10-TRC-13444.            Both offenses were first-degree
    misdemeanors.
    {¶3} In September 2013, J.M.B. filed an applicaton to seal the record of her drug
    paraphernalia conviction in Case No. 10-CRB-00899. The trial court summarily denied
    J.M.B.’s application, stating:
    Upon the filing of the Motion to Seal Record, this Court hereby finds, in
    accordance with ORC 2953.61 “* * * the person may not apply to the court
    for the sealing of his record in any of the cases until such time as he would
    be able to apply to the court and have all of the records in all of the cases
    pertaining to those charges sealed * * *.” The case at hand is a companion
    case to a traffic matter charged on the same date at the same time as the
    case in question; per ORC 2953.36(B) a traffic matter may not be sealed,
    therefore the case at hand is not eligible. The Motion to Seal the Record is
    NOT well taken and is therefore denied.
    {¶4} J.M.B. appeals from this judgment.
    II. Analysis
    {¶5} Because both of J.M.B.’s assignments of error involve the interpretation of
    a statute, which is a question of law, we review the trial court’s judgment de novo. State
    v. Pariag, 
    137 Ohio St.3d 81
    , 
    2013-Ohio-4010
    , 
    998 N.E.2d 401
    , ¶ 9, citing Med. Mut. of
    Ohio v. Schlotterer, 
    122 Ohio St.3d 181
    , 
    2009-Ohio-2496
    , 
    909 N.E.2d 1237
    , ¶ 13; State
    v. Futrall, 
    123 Ohio St.3d 498
    , 
    2009-Ohio-5590
    , 
    918 N.E.2d 497
    , ¶ 6-7.
    {¶6}    In her first assignment of error, J.M.B. contends that the trial court erred in
    denying her motion to seal the record of her drug paraphernalia conviction because R.C.
    2953.61 does not apply to this case.
    {¶7} Under R.C. 2953.61,
    [w]hen a person is charged with two or more offenses as a result of or in
    connection with the same act and at least one of the charges has a final
    disposition that is different than the final disposition of the other charges,
    the person may not apply to the court for the sealing of his record in any of
    the cases until such time as he would be able to apply to the court and have
    all of the records in all of the cases pertaining to those charges sealed
    pursuant to divisions (A)(1) and (2) of section 2953.32 and divisions (A)(1)
    and (2) of section 2953.52 of the Revised Code. (Emphasis added.)
    {¶8} Thus, the statute applies when a person is charged with multiple offenses
    that arise “as a result of or in connection with the same act” and the multiple offenses
    have differing dispositions. Pariag at ¶ 14-16. J.M.B. contends that the statute does
    not apply to this case because the dispositions of the drug paraphernalia and reckless
    operation charges were the same, i.e., she was convicted of both offenses. We agree.
    Because the dispositions were the same in both cases, R.C. 2953.61 does not apply. The
    first assignment of error is therefore sustained.
    {¶9} In her second assignment of error, J.M.B. contends that the trial court erred in
    summarily denying her motion without a hearing, as required by R.C. 2953.32(B).
    {¶10} Under R.C. 2953.32(A)(1), “[e]xcept as provided in section 2953.61 of the
    Revised Code, an eligible offender may apply to the sentencing court * * *for the sealing
    of the conviction record.” After an application has been filed, “the court shall set a date
    for a hearing” and the prosecutor may file objections “prior to the date set for the
    hearing.” R.C. 2953.32(B).
    {¶11} Under R.C. 2953.32(C), if the court determines at the hearing that the
    applicant is an eligible offender, no criminal proceedings are pending against the
    applicant, the applicant has been rehabilitated, and the interests of the applicant in having
    the records sealed outweigh the needs, if any, of the government to maintain those
    records, the court shall seal the official records of the case.
    {¶12} The trial court denied J.M.B.’s application for expungement without a
    hearing in contravention of the statutory requirement for a hearing. This court has
    repeatedly held that a hearing on an expungement motion is mandatory, and failure to
    hold a hearing is grounds for reversal. See State v. R.A., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 97550
    and 97551, 
    2012-Ohio-2507
    , ¶ 6. Therefore, we must reverse and remand this matter to
    the trial court for a hearing. The second assignment of error is sustained.
    {¶13} Reversed and remanded.
    It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
    The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Berea
    Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
    the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
    KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and
    MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 100680

Citation Numbers: 2014 Ohio 3144

Judges: Keough

Filed Date: 7/17/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014