State v. G.H. ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. G.H., 2023-Ohio-3269.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NOS. C-230013
C-230014
and : TRIAL NOS. C-16CRB-19192
17CRB-6384
CITY OF CINCINNATI, :
Plaintiffs-Appellees, : O P I N I O N.
vs. :
G.H., :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgments Appealed From Are: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 15, 2023
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Ohio,
Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney,
and Chris Konitzer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee City of
Cincinnati,
Suhre & Associates, LLC, and J. Tanner Duncan, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant G.H. appeals from the municipal court’s decisions
to deny his applications to seal the records of his 2016 conviction for misdemeanor
assault (R.C. 2903.13) and subsequent 2017 misdemeanor conviction for violation of
a protection order (R.C. 2919.27). Because we conclude that the court based its
decisions to deny G.H.’s applications on improper grounds, we sustain his assignment
of error and remand the cause for further proceedings.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} In July 2016, G.H. was charged with domestic violence against A.T. He
eventually entered a guilty plea to an amended charge of assault, a first-degree
misdemeanor. He was sentenced to one year of community control, including the
requirement that he have no contact with A.T.
{¶3} In March 2017, G.H. was charged with violating a protection order for
attempting to contact A.T. via FaceTime and Facebook Messenger. G.H. entered a plea
of no contest. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to one year of
community control and 60 days of electronic monitoring, and again ordered that he
stay away from A.T.
{¶4} In November 2022, G.H. filed applications to have the records of three
cases sealed: a 1999 misdemeanor drug-possession case, the 2016 assault case, and
the 2017 protection-order-violation case. The trial court granted his application to seal
the drug-possession record. However, the trial court denied G.H.’s applications to seal
the records of the assault and protection-order violation.
{¶5} G.H. did not appear at the December 2022 hearing on his applications
for sealing. During the hearing, G.H.’s attorney suggested that G.H. was out of the
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
country, and that he had previously requested to have his presence at the hearing
waived. Thus, G.H. was not available to personally address the court.
{¶6} G.H. also did not provide the court with an affidavit in support of his
application. Instead, G.H.’s attorney argued that G.H. took responsibility for his
offenses at the time, as reflected in his guilty and no-contest pleas, he subsequently
lost his teaching license and was forced to retire, and he now has a massage license.
G.H.’s attorney argued that G.H.’s criminal record is now preventing him from
obtaining a work visa in a foreign country.
{¶7} The only evidence in the record is G.H.’s probation report. The report
shows that G.H. has not committed any offenses since the 2017 protection-order
violation.
{¶8} Because the drug-possession and assault charges were originally
prosecuted by the county prosecutor’s office, a county prosecutor represented the state
as to the sealing of those records. The county prosecutor entered no objection to G.H.’s
request.
{¶9} The protection-order violation was prosecuted by the city prosecutor’s
office, which did object to the sealing of the record. However, the city offered no
argument as to why the record should not be sealed.
{¶10} Following the hearing, the court granted G.H.’s application to seal the
drug-possession record, but denied the application to seal the assault and protection-
order-violation records. In pronouncing its decision, the court stated:
Regarding [the drug-possession case], applicant is eligible, and hearing
no objection, the court will grant the motion to seal that case.
Regarding C-16CRB-19192 and 17CRB-6384, the court will deny the
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
applications.
I certainly take no issue with the applicant’s intention and basis for
seeking. These are both serious convictions involving serious crimes, an
assault which was amended from domestic violence and a subsequent
violation of a protection order involving the same victim relatively close
to one another, within one year.
I think there’s been insufficient demonstration of rehabilitation, given
the seriousness of those crimes. But regardless of the status of
rehabilitation, I think, again given the serious nature of those crimes,
including the crime of violence, the government’s interest in
maintaining those records open public access to those records
outweighs the defendant’s, or the applicant’s legitimate interest in
seeking to have them sealed.
Further, I’ll note that the witness was not notified of today’s hearing.
{¶11} The trial court’s written decision denying G.H.’s application for sealing
the record of the assault case states:
• insufficient demonstration of rehabilitation (subsequent conviction
for violating protection order)
• even if rehabilitated, interests of government outweigh applicant’s
where this is a crime of violence (originally charged as domestic
violence)
• PW not notified of the hearing.
{¶12} The written decision in the protection-order-violation case states:
• insufficient demonstration of rehabilitation, given seriousness of
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
offense
• regardless, government’s interest outweighs applicant’s interest,
this offense came less than 1 year after domestic violence (assault)
conviction involving same victim.
{¶13} G.H. brought this timely appeal challenging the denial of his record-
sealing applications.
II. Analysis
{¶14} In his sole assignment of error, G.H. argues that the trial court abused
its discretion when it denied his applications to seal the records of his assault and
protection-order-violation convictions. We agree.
{¶15} This court reviews the trial court’s decision to deny an application to
seal a record of conviction for an abuse of discretion. State v. Sager, 2019-Ohio-135,
131 N.E.3d 335, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.). A trial court abuses its discretion when it “exercise[es]
its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has
discretionary authority.” State v. Austin, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-210140 and
C-210141, 2021-Ohio-3608, ¶ 5, quoting Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427,
2021-Ohio-3304, 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35. Abuse of discretion “implies that the court's
attitude, in reaching its decision, was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.”
Johnson at ¶ 34, quoting Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d
1140 (1983). See State v. R.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-210169, C-210170, C-210171,
C-210172, and C-210173, 2022-Ohio-1108, ¶ 7.
A decision is unreasonable when it is “not supported by ‘a sound
reasoning process.’ ” A decision is arbitrary when it is “made without
consideration of or regard for facts [or] circumstances.” In other words,
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
an abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s judgment “ ‘ “does not
comport with reason or the record.” ’ ”
(Internal citations omitted.) R.S. at ¶ 8.
{¶16} The sealing of an individual’s criminal record is an act of legislative
grace. Id. at ¶ 10, citing State v. Boykin, 138 Ohio St.3d 97, 2013-Ohio-4582, 4 N.E.3d
980, ¶ 11. The application process for sealing a record of conviction is governed by R.C.
2953.32.1 Id. In determining whether to grant the application, the court is required to:
(a) Determine whether the applicant is an eligible offender * * *;
(b) Determine whether criminal proceedings are pending against the
applicant;
(c) If the applicant is an eligible offender who applies pursuant to
division (A)(1) of this section, determine whether the applicant has been
rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the court;
(d) If the prosecutor has filed an objection [to the application], consider
the reasons against granting the application specified by the prosecutor
in the objection;
(e) Weigh the interests of the applicant in having the records pertaining
to the applicant’s conviction or bail forfeiture sealed against the
legitimate needs, if any, of the government to maintain those records[.]
Id., quoting former R.C. 2953.32(C)(1).
{¶17} The first requirement, to determine whether the applicant is an eligible
offender, refers to the definition provided in former R.C. 2953.31(A)(1), which pertains
1 Because G.H. filed his applications for sealing in November 2022, we apply the statutes in effect
at that time. As of April 2023, the relevant statutes have been substantially amended. See 2022
Am.Sub.S.B. No. 288; 2022 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 343.
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
to the number of convictions and the nature of the offenses in the applicant’s criminal
history. The state and the city do not dispute that G.H. is an eligible offender. They
also do not dispute that there were no criminal proceedings pending against him. As
stated above, the county prosecutor did not object to the sealing of G.H.’s records, and
while the city prosecutor did object, there were no reasons specified against granting
the application. On appeal, the state and the city ask us to affirm the trial court’s denial
of G.H.’s applications.
{¶18} The two factors at issue in this case are whether the court abused its
discretion in finding that G.H. was not rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the court and
whether the court abused its discretion in finding that the government’s interest in
maintaining the records outweighed G.H.’s interest in sealing his records.
{¶19} As stated above, G.H. did not personally address the court, nor did he
provide an affidavit in support of his application.2 The only evidence in the record is
G.H.’s probation report. The report shows that G.H. has not committed any offenses
since the 2017 protection-order violation.
{¶20} Thus, it seems that this sole evidence of a clean criminal record after
2017 convinced the trial court that G.H. was satisfactorily rehabilitated as to the drug-
possession conviction. Nevertheless, the court found that G.H. was not satisfactorily
rehabilitated regarding his assault and protection-order-violation convictions.
{¶21} Regarding the assault conviction, the court stated in its written decision
that there had been an “insufficient demonstration of rehabilitation,” noting only the
“subsequent conviction for violating [a] protection order,” as a reason for this finding.
Regarding the protection-order violation, the court stated in its written decision that
2 G.H.’s attorney’s argument to the court is not evidence. State v. A.V., 9th Dist. Lorain No.
18CA011315, 2019-Ohio-1037, ¶ 11.
7
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
there had been an “insufficient demonstration of rehabilitation given the seriousness
of the offense.” We hold that the court’s reasoning for determining that there was an
insufficient demonstration of rehabilitation was an abuse of discretion because this
reasoning runs counter to the legislature’s determination that certain types of offenses
and a certain number of offenses are eligible to be sealed.
{¶22} We have previously held that “the nature of the offense cannot provide
the sole basis to deny an application to seal records.” R.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos.
C-210169, C-210170, C-210171, C-210172, and C-210173, 2022-Ohio-1108, at ¶ 29,
quoting State v. M.H., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105589, 2018-Ohio-582, ¶ 16. The
legislature has already made that determination in setting forth which offenses are
eligible to be sealed and which are not. See M.H. at ¶ 19 (acknowledging that if public
interest in knowing who had committed certain offenses were “paramount” to all other
interests, the legislature would have exempted those offenses from sealing).
Furthermore, the legislature has already decided that people are permitted to seal the
records of a certain number of offenses, including certain offenses of violence. Former
R.C. 2953.36(A)(4) and 2953.31(A).3 While a court may not agree with the legislature
on this issue, a court cannot deny an application to seal based solely on the nature or
number of offenses, if the records of those offenses are eligible for sealing under the
law.
3 The “eligible offender” definition under former R.C. 2953.31(A)(1)(a) excludes anyone who has
been convicted of an offense of violence. However, misdemeanor assault under R.C. 2903.13 is an
exception to the preclusion of sealing of crimes of violence. See former R.C. 2953.31(A)(1)(b) and
2953.36(A)(4). Former R.C. 2953.31(A)(1)(b) states that an offender to whom division (A)(1)(a)
does not apply is still eligible if he “has not more than two felony convictions, has not more than
four misdemeanor convictions, or, if the person has exactly two felony convictions, has not more
than those two felony convictions and two misdemeanor convictions * * *.” The convictions must
also satisfy the requirements of former R.C. 2953.36, which permits sealing of an assault conviction
under R.C. 2903.13 that is classified as a first-degree misdemeanor. Former R.C. 2953.36(A)(4).
8
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶23} The trial court also denied G.H.’s applications because it found that the
government’s interest in maintaining the records of G.H.’s convictions outweighs
G.H.’s interest in sealing the records. Again, this finding was based on the nature and
number of the offenses. The state and the city presented no argument as to what
governmental interest is served by denying G.H.’s applications.
{¶24} We recognize that the burden is on the applicant to show that his
interests in sealing the records “are at least equal to the governmental interests.” R.S.
at ¶ 26, quoting State v. Haney, 70 Ohio App.3d 135, 139, 590 N.E.2d 445 (10th
Dist.1991). However, where the government has not articulated any need to maintain
the records, the court abuses its discretion by relying solely on the nature of the
offenses to justify a determination that the government’s interests outweigh those of
the applicant. See State v. A.S., 2022-Ohio-3833, 199 N.E.3d 994, ¶ 15 (1st Dist.); State
v. Garry, 173 Ohio App.3d 168, 2007-Ohio-4878, 877 N.E.2d 755, ¶ 7 (1st Dist.).
III. Conclusion
{¶25} Because the trial court abused its discretion when it denied G.H.’s
applications for the reasons the court stated, we sustain his assignment of error. We
therefore reverse the court’s judgments denying his applications to seal the records
and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with the law and this
opinion.
Judgments reversed and cause remanded.
ZAYAS and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
9