State v. Mevorah ( 2012 )

[Cite as State v. Mevorah, 2012-Ohio-4671.]
COURT OF APPEALS
DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. 2012-CAC-030021
STANLEY MEVORAH :
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Delaware
MunicipalCourt, Case No. 08CRB01105
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 8, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOSEPH SCHMANSKY NICHOLAS SINIFF
Delaware County Prosecutor Yavitch & Palmer Co., L.P.A.
70 North Union Street 511 South High Street
Delaware, OH 43015 Columbus, OH 43215
[Cite as State v. Mevorah, 2012-Ohio-4671.]
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant Stanley Mevorah appeals a judgment of the Municipal Court of
Delaware County, Ohio, which denied his application to seal the record of his criminal
conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.31. Appellant assigns a single error to the trial court:
{¶2} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S
APPLICATION TO SEAL THE RECORD OF HIS MINOR MISDEMEANOR
DISORDERLY CONDUCT CONVICTION WHEN APPELLANT WAS A ‘FIRST
OFFENDER’ AS DEFINED UNDER R.C. 2953.31 (A).”
{¶3} The record indicates appellant was convicted of OVI in violation of R.C.
4511.19(A) in 2007, and convicted of the minor misdemeanor offense of disorderly
conduct in May 2008. On November 2009, appellant applied to seal the record of the
minor misdemeanor conviction, but the court denied the requested relief because it
found appellant did not qualify as a first offender as defined by the statute. Appellant
does not seek to seal the record of the OVI conviction, but only the minor misdemeanor.
{¶4} R.C. 2953.31 (A) defines the term first offender. It provides in pertinent
part:
“First offender” means anyone who has been convicted of an offense in
this state or any other jurisdiction and who previously or subsequently has
not been convicted of the same or a different offense in this state or any
other jurisdiction. * * *
For purposes of, and except as otherwise provided in, this division, a
conviction for a minor misdemeanor, for a violation of any section in
Chapter 4507., 4510., 4511., 4513., or 4549. of the Revised Code, or for a
Delaware County, Case No. 2012-CAC-030021 3
violation of a municipal ordinance that is substantially similar to any
section in those chapters is not a previous or subsequent conviction.
However, a conviction for a violation of section 4511.19, * * * shall be
considered a previous or subsequent conviction.
{¶5} Pursuant to the statutory definition, appellant’s OVI conviction must be
considered a previous conviction. Thus, even though the subsequent offense is a minor
misdemeanor, appellant cannot be considered a first offender.
{¶6} The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶7} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Municipal Court of
Delaware County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By Gwin, P. J.,
Hoffman, J., and
Farmer, J., concur
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
WSG:clw 0907
[Cite as State v. Mevorah, 2012-Ohio-4671.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
STANLEY MEVORAH :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 2012-CAC-030021
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of
the Municipal Court of Delaware County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to appellant.
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER