In re C.H.
Docket Number | WD-21-034,WD-21-044,WD-21-045,WD-21-046,WD-21-047,WD-21-048,WD-21-049 |
Decision Date | 03 December 2021 |
Parties | In re C.H. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles S Bergman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for appellee.
James A. Hammer, for appellant.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal appellant, C.H appeals the April 13, 2021 judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division which, following multiple delinquency adjudications, denied his motion to seal his juvenile record. Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
{¶ 2} In 2015 and 2016, appellant was adjudicated to be a delinquent child as to six misdemeanor counts including possession of marijuana, disorderly conduct, and multiple probation violations. Appellant was also adjudicated a delinquent child as to one felony count, gross sexual imposition. The dispositional orders stemming from the adjudications included commitment to the DYS for a minimum of six months followed by a 70-day detention at the Wood County Juvenile Detention Center, 30 days of house arrest, community control and probation, sex offender treatment, a mental health assessment and substance abuse treatment, and community service. Appellant was also classified as a Tier II juvenile sexual offender.
{¶ 3} On September 12, 2017, appellant was successfully discharged from probation. Following a hearing on January 7 2019, and without objection, the court terminated appellant's sexual offender classification and registration requirements.
{¶ 4} Appellant filed an amended motion[1] to seal his juvenile record on March 4, 2021. The state opposed the motion and a hearing was held on April 8, 2021. On April 13, 2021, the trial court issued its judgment entry, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, denying appellant's motion to seal. This appeal followed.
The trial court erred in denying appellant's request to seal the records of case numbers 2015 JA 0047; 2015 JA 0130; 2015 JA 0295; 2015 JA 0378; 2015 JA 0480; 2015 JA 0947; and 2016 JA 0661 under circumstances wherein the prosecuting attorney offered no evidence in opposition to the request.
{¶ 5} Appellant's sole assignment of error asserts that in denying appellant's motion to seal his juvenile record, the trial court erred in determining that appellant had not been satisfactorily rehabilitated. As correctly stated by appellant, a trial court's decision granting or denying a motion to seal a juvenile record under R.C 2151.356 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In the Matter of H.S., 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2020-G-0239, 2020-Ohio-4530, ¶ 6, citing State v. S.J., 2020-Ohio-183, 151 N.E.3d 1021, ¶ 6 (8th Dist). Further, "the sealing of a criminal record is a '"'privilege, not a right'"' and should only be granted when all statutory requirements are met." State ex rel Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, 140 Ohio St.3d 7, 2014-Ohio-2354, 14 N.E.3d 989, ¶ 15, quoting State v. Boykin, 138 Ohio St.3d 97, 2013-Ohio-4582, 4 N.E.3d 980, ¶ 11 (Additional citations omitted.)
{¶ 6} In the present case, R.C. 2151.356(C) sets forth the procedure for sealing a juvenile record. It provides, in relevant part:
{¶ 7} In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that he had not been "rehabilitated to a satisfactory degree." Appellant's assertion is not that the court improperly considered any of the statutory factors; rather, that its conclusion based upon the existing factors was flawed. Appellant further stresses the fact that the state, though it filed a memorandum opposing his motion to seal, failed to present any evidence at the hearing.
{¶ 8} As to the assertion that the state failed to present any evidence warranting the denial of his application, we note that appellant has the burden to show that his interest in sealing the records is equal to or outweighs the state's interest in maintaining those records; therefore, there is no requirement that the state present any evidence at the hearing. State v. Shaffer, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2009-G-2929, 2010-Ohio-6565, ¶ 24-25, citing State v. Haney, 70 Ohio App.3d 135, 138, 590 N.E.2d 445 (10th Dist.1991). See State v. Andrasek, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81398, 2003-Ohio-32, appeal not allowed, 99 Ohio St.3d 1414, 2003-Ohio-2480, 788 N.E.2d 649.
{¶ 9} In the state's written opposition to appellant's motion it stated that appellant had a 2014 juvenile delinquency adjudication sealed, in 2015, he had multiple probation violations and was charged with rape which was amended to gross sexual imposition. In 2016, appellant again had a probation violation. This history, the state argued, demonstrated its compelling interest in not having appellant's juvenile record sealed.
{¶ 10} At the hearing, appellant's grandmother testified that appellant lived with her during his probation and that at that time he had anger management issues and that she had been fearful of his behavior and did not trust him around her valuables. Grandmother stated that she has seen a lot of growth in appellant as his grandmother and as a minster who has worked with at-risk youth. She stated that appellant has strong family and church support. Grandmother also authored a letter which was admitted into evidence.
{¶ 11} Appellant's mother testified regarding the positive changes she witnessed in her son. She stated that appellant wishes to take the lessons he has learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial