State v. J.M. ( 2018 )

[Cite as State v. J.M., 2018-Ohio-2048.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 106920
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
J.M.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-82-174860-ZA
BEFORE: McCormack, P.J., Celebrezze, J., and Jones, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 24, 2018
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Mark A. Stanton
Cuyahoga County Public Defender
By: Cullen Sweeney
Assistant Public Defender
310 Lakeside Ave., Ste. 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O’Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Diane Smilanick
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
TIM McCORMACK, P.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant J.M. appeals the trial court’s denial of his application to seal
official records without a hearing. The state, pursuant to Loc.App.R. 16(B), concedes the error. We
reverse and remand for a hearing on J.M.’s application to seal court records following dismissal of
the charges.
{¶2} In August 1982, J.M. was indicted for felonious assault. In October 1982, upon the
prosecutor’s request, the case was nolled. In February 2017, 35 years later, J.M. filed a motion to
seal court records following dismissal of the charges. The state opposed the motion, and the trial
court denied the motion without a hearing.
{¶3} J.M. now appeals, raising one assignment of error for our review: the trial court erred
when it denied appellant’s application to seal his record without a hearing. In response, the state
filed a notice of conceded error pursuant to Loc.App.R. 16(B), stating that it agrees that the trial
court was required to hold a hearing and failed to do so.
{¶4} Upon the filing of an application to seal official records following the dismissal of
proceedings, R.C. 2953.52(B)(1) provides that
the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor in the case of
the hearing on the application. The prosecutor may object to the granting of the
application by filing an objection with the court prior to the date set for the hearing.
The prosecutor shall specify in the objection the reasons the prosecutor believes
justify a denial of the application.
R.C. 2953.52(B)(1); State v. G.D., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 104317 and 104328, 2016-Ohio-8148, ¶
8. The hearing is a mandatory requirement under R.C. 2953.52(B) and therefore an application to
seal records under this statute cannot be summarily denied. State v. Davis, 175 Ohio App. 3d 318,
2008-Ohio-753, 886 N.E.2d 916, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.). The hearing is required in order to weigh the
interests of the appellant and the state. State v. Delgado, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102653,
2015-Ohio-5256, ¶ 17.
{¶5} Here, the trial court summarily denied J.M.’s application in a one-sentence judgment
without holding a hearing. The trial court therefore erred in failing to comply with the requirements
of R.C. 2953.52(B).
{¶6} J.M.’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
{¶7} Judgment reversed and remanded for the trial court to consider J.M.’s application to seal
the record in accordance with the procedure outlined in R.C. 2953.52(B).
It is ordered that appellant recover of said 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 common pleas 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.
__________________________________________
TIM McCORMACK, PRESIDING JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR