In re A.C.
| Decision Date | 22 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18 CA 1 |
| Citation | 2018 Ohio 4366 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: A.C., DELINQUENT CHILD |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
OPINION
For Plaintiff-State of Ohio
Guernsey County Prosecutor's Office
JOEL BLUE
Guernsey County Prosecutor
By: JASON FARLEY
and MELISSA R. BRIGHT
Assistant Prosecutors
139 West 8th Street
P.O. Box 640
Cambridge, Ohio 43725
For Defendant-A.C.
Office of the Ohio Public Defender
BROOKE M. BURNS
Chief Counsel, Juvenile Department
LAUREEN HAMMERSMITH
Assistant State Public Defender
250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
Columbus, Ohio 43215
{¶1} Appellant, A.C., appeals the decision of the Guernsey County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, denying his motion to seal and expunge the record of his admission to four counts of rape in Juvenile Court. The Appellee is the State of Ohio.
{¶2} In 2006, Appellant admitted to four counts of rape of his adoptive sister when Appellant was fourteen and the victim was eight. Appellant completed residential treatment, continued with outpatient treatment, reconciled with his family and made such progress that the juvenile court was persuaded to terminate his obligation to register as a juvenile sex offender in 2014, more than two years early.
{¶3} On October 30, 2017, Appellant filed a motion to seal and expunge the juvenile record of his offenses pursuant to R. C. 2151.356 and 2151.358. The State opposed the motion and, on December 8, 2017, the trial court denied the request, holding that it had no authority to grant it, finding that "R.C. 2151.356(A) does not permit sealing of records for juveniles who commit violations of R.C. 2907.02." Appellant filed his notice of Appeal on January 8, 2018 and submitted two assignments of error:
{¶4}
EXPUNGE HIS ADJUDICATION FOR RAPE UNDER R.C. 2151.356 (A) BECAUSE THE STATUTE TREATS CLASSES OF SIMILARLY SITUATED CHILDREN DIFFERENTLY, WITHOUT ANY RATIONAL BASIS. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."(SIC)
{¶6} The standard of review for Equal Protection and Due Process claims differs with the classification and right at issue. In the case of Jones v. Bruce, 921 F.Supp. 708, 710, (D.Kan.1996) the court addressed the applicable standard of review concerning equal protection challenges to a new state sentencing scheme. The court held as follows:
Varying standards of review apply to an equal protection challenge depending on the type of classification at issue. Where fundamental rights or a suspect classification are involved, strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1, 17, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1288, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). An intermediate standard has been applied to gender-based classifications. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197, 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). Absent classifications which implicate such special interests, the rational basis test is employed. Rodriquez, supra, 411 U.S. at 17, 93 S.Ct. at 1288. Id. at 710.
{¶7} Appellant is not a member of a protected classification and no fundamental right is addressed in this case, State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531, 533, 2000-Ohio-474, 721 N.E.2d 1041 (2000), quoting State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636, 639, 1998-Ohio- 264, 665 N.E.2d 669 (1996), so we must apply a rational basis analysis to Appellant's assignments.
{¶8} "Laws limiting rights, other than fundamental rights, are constitutional with respect to substantive due process and equal protection if the laws are rationally related to a legitimate goal of government." See State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560-561, 664 N.E.2d 926. Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724, 871 N.E.2d 1152, ¶ 33 (2007).
This deferential rational-basis standard is "a paradigm of judicial restraint," Fed. Communications Comm. v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 314, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993), and "not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices," Id. at 313, 113 S.Ct. 2096. "The Constitution presumes that, absent some reason to infer antipathy, even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process and that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think a political branch has acted." (Footnote omitted.) Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97, 99 S.Ct. 939, 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979). Therefore, a legislative classification must survive so long as a court can conceive of any "plausible" policy justification—regardless of whether the court views that reason as unwise, unfair, or illogical. Beach Communications at 313, 314, 113 S.Ct. 2096.
State v. Bevly, 142 Ohio St.3d 41, 2015-Ohio-475, 27 N.E.3d 516, ¶ 35 (2015) {¶9} In the context of a rational basis review, "a state has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification." Columbia Gas Transm. Corp. v. Levin, 117 Ohio St.3d 122, 2008-Ohio-511, 882 N.E.2d 400, ¶ 91, citing Am. Assn. of Univ. Professors, Cent. State Univ. Chapter, 87 Ohio St.3d at 58, 60, 1999-Ohio-248, 717 N.E.2d 286. "[S]tatutes are presumed to be constitutional and * * * courts have a duty to liberally construe statutes in order to save them from constitutional infirmities." **379 Eppley v. Tri-Valley Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio St.3d 56, 2009-Ohio-1970, 908 N.E.2d 401, ¶ 12, citing Desenco, Inc. v. Akron, 84 Ohio St.3d 535, 538, 1999-Ohio-368, 706 N.E.2d 323 (1999). The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute "bears the burden to negate every conceivable basis that might support the legislation." Columbia Gas Transm. Corp. at ¶ 91, citing Lyons v. Limbach (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 92, 94, 532 N.E.2d 106, as cited in State v. Mole, 149 Ohio St.3d 215, 2016-Ohio-5124, 74 N.E.3d 368, ¶ 27 (2016), reconsideration denied, 146 Ohio St.3d 1516, 2016-Ohio-7199, 60 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 27 (2016).
{¶10} Appellant contends that R.C. 2151.356 is unconstitutional because it excepts three offenses from the statutory sealing and expungement process. The language at issue in this case is found in R.C. 2151.356(A):
The records of a case in which a person was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing a violation of section 2903.01, 2903.02, or 2907.02 of the Revised Code shall not be sealed under this section.
{¶11} Appellant was found delinquent as a result of a violation of R.C. 2907.02 and, therefore, this language prohibited the sealing of his records. Because the records cannot be sealed, they cannot be expunged under the terms of R.C. 2151.358 as that statute provides expunction only for records that have been sealed under the terms of R.C. 2151.356.
{¶12} The Appellant's constitutional rights are limited in the context of an application for sealing and expungement. "The Ohio Supreme Court has made clear that Due Process rights are limited in expungement proceedings because "expungement hearings are not structured on the adversarial model." State v. Haas, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-04-1315, 2005-Ohio-4350, ¶ 10 (citations omitted). . State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636, 1996-Ohio-440, 665 N.E.2d 669 (1996).
{¶13} The Eleventh District Court of Appeal concluded, that neither adults nor juveniles possess a substantive right to have a conviction expunged:
[a]s a result a criminal defendant is not entitled in an expungement proceeding to the same degree of due process as normally accorded in the original criminal proceeding. Even though the differences between a juvenile offender and a criminal defendant sometimes warrant the application of different standards, this court cannot discern any reason why the foregoing holdings would not apply to a juvenile offender for purposes of the sealing or expungement of prior convictions.
In re Rovtar, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2005-G-2678, 2006-Ohio-6697, ¶ 27.
{¶14} A similar argument regarding the analogous statute for adult criminal convictions was rejected by the court in State v. Lafever, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-880697, 1989 WL 146434, *1:
{¶15} We find that the application of the rational basis test to the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial