State v. Blair, C–160333.
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
| Citation | 62 N.E.3d 201 |
| Docket Number | No. C–160333.,C–160333. |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Ahkeyya BLAIR, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 09 September 2016 |
62 N.E.3d 201
STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Ahkeyya BLAIR, Defendant–Appellant.
No. C–160333.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.
Sept. 9, 2016.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Demetra Stamatakos, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant–Appellant.
OPINION.
FISCHER, Presiding Judge.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Ahkeyya Blair appeals the decision of the Hamilton County Municipal court denying her application to seal the record in a criminal case. This is a case of first impression involving the issue of what constitutes a “criminal proceeding” under R.C. 2953.32, the statute which permits the sealing of records. We find no merit in Blair's sole assignment of error, and we affirm the trial court's judgment.
{¶ 2} Blair was originally charged with one count of aggravated robbery with accompanying firearm specifications and one count of robbery. Following a bench trial, she was acquitted of both charges. She subsequently filed an application to have
the record of that case sealed. The state objected, arguing that she still had a criminal proceeding pending against her because she was on community control for a misdemeanor conviction for menacing. The trial court denied Blair's motion on that basis, but told her that she could file another application when her community control was terminated. This appeal followed.
{¶ 3} In her sole assignment of error, Blair contends that the trial court erred in denying her application to seal the record. She argues that “probation” is not a sentence, and therefore, there was no pending criminal proceeding. This assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶ 4} Generally, an appellate court will not disturb a trial court's decision to grant or deny an application to seal records absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Pankey, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C–110547 and C–110548, 2012-Ohio-936, 2012 WL 762116, ¶ 3. But where, as in this case, the dispute about the sealing of records involves a purely legal question, we review the issue de novo. State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498, 2009-Ohio-5590, 918 N.E.2d 497, ¶ 6 ; Pankey at ¶ 3.
{¶ 5} R.C. 2953.52(A) allows any person found not guilty of an offense by a jury or a court to apply to the court for an order to seal the record in the case. Upon the filing of the application, R.C. 2953.52(B) requires the trial court to set a date for a hearing and to notify the prosecutor. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Floyd, S. C-170607
...sentence. Floyd asks this court to reverse the trial court's judgments and overrule our recent opinion in State v. Blair , 2016-Ohio-5714, 62 N.E.3d 201 (1st Dist.). In Blair , we held that a defendant serving community control had a criminal proceeding pending against her, and therefore, a......
-
State v. Sager, S. C-180051
...as here, the question of eligibility for sealing involves a purely legal question, we review the issue de novo. See State v. Blair , 2016-Ohio-5714, 62 N.E.3d 201, ¶ 4 (1st Dist.), citing Futrall at ¶ 6 ; see also State v. Hill , 2016-Ohio-1551, 63 N.E.3d 690, ¶ 6 (10th Dist.). {¶10} R.C. 2......
-
State v. J.M.S., 18AP-772
...in the sealing statutes. Compare R.C. 2953.52 with R.C. 2953.32. The trial court cited State v. Blair , 1st Dist., 2016-Ohio-5714, 62 N.E.3d 2012 where the applicant was on community control and the First District Court of Appeals found as a matter of law that the applicant was not eligible......
-
State v. Pewett, C–150668.
...it involves the trial court's discretionary power to grant a motion to seal the record of an eligible applicant. See State v. Blair, 2016-Ohio-5714, 62 N.E.3d 201, ¶ 4. To accept the state's argument would mean that a defendant could never appeal the denial of a motion to seal or a motion f......