State v. A.L.H.
| Docket Number | 112469 |
| Decision Date | 28 December 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. A.L.H., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
1
2023-Ohio-4789
STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
A.L.H., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 112469
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
December 28, 2023
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-18-626978-A
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Owen Knapp, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Jonathan Sidney, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant A.L.H. ("appellant") challenges the judgment of the trial court denying his application to seal his record of conviction. After a thorough review of the applicable law and facts, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Appellant was employed as a corrections officer with the Cuyahoga County Sheriffs Office. The facts of this case were not fully set forth at the combined plea and sentencing hearing; however, we can glean from the record that while appellant was on duty in December 2017, an inmate was injured by several gang members. Appellant failed to log the injury of the inmate into the facility logbook. The court noted at the plea hearing that the allegations against appellant could likely have yielded a tampering with evidence charge, which would have been a third-degree felony.
{¶ 3} The court further noted:
I know it's a difficult job, but with great power comes great responsibility. You had great power. As I understand it - maybe I'm wrong - but someone got whooped up on It's your job to take care of those people, regardless of their lot in life, regardless [of] whether they deserved it or not. You know just as well as I do that the folks who wear guns and badges and go to work, I'm sure maybe not daily but maybe weekly they come across people who you think in your own personal opinion deserve to have the crap beat out of them, and you may not be wrong, but your job says you can't do that
Plea and sentencing hearing transcript at tr. 15.
{¶ 4} Appellant acknowledged that an inmate was injured but maintained that he asked the inmate if he wanted medical treatment. The court then reminded
appellant that he covered up the incident and that he had a greater responsibility as a public servant to not let something like that happen. Tr. 16-17.
{¶ 5} Appellant was charged with dereliction of duty, a misdemeanor of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.44(C)(5). He pled guilty to the indictment and was sentenced to six months of community control, along with a three-day jail sanction, and ordered to pay court costs.
{¶ 6} Appellant's community control supervision terminated without incident, and he paid his court costs. After the statutory time period of one year had elapsed since his final discharge, appellant filed an application for sealing of the record of conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.32 and requested a hearing. The state filed its opposition, and the application was summarily denied by the trial court.
{¶ 7} Appellant filed a second application for sealing of the record of conviction. The state filed a notice with the trial court in which it indicated that it had no opposition to the application. The trial court again summarily denied appellant's application.
{¶ 8} Appellant appealed the denial of his application to this court in State v. A.L.H., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111721, 2022-Ohio-4016. The state conceded that the trial court had erred by failing to hold a hearing on appellant's application and acknowledged that appellant was an eligible offender. Accordingly, we vacated the trial court's order denying appellant's application and remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to set a hearing date pursuant to R.C. 2953.32(B).
{¶ 9} On remand, a hearing was scheduled, but was continued after the state notified the court that it would be opposing appellant's application. The state filed its brief in opposition, arguing that public interest compelled the denial of the sealing of the conviction record.
{¶ 10} The court held a hearing on the application, at which appellant's counsel and counsel for the state only presented arguments; no evidence was offered at the hearing. Following the hearing, the court entered an order denying the application without explanation.
{¶ 11} Appellant appealed the denial, and prior to the matter being heard by this court, appellant moved to remand the case to the trial court for the sole purpose of requiring the trial court to set forth its findings in support of the denial of his application.
{¶ 12} The trial court then held a hearing, noting the limited remand, and made the following findings:
I do find that at that time [A.L.H.] was in a position of public trust and that the underlying matter resulted in an abuse of that power of public trust which is the basis for his conviction. And so again in utilizing my judicial discretion I do find that the legitimate interests of the government to maintain those records outweigh the application. So once again I will deny the application.
{¶ 13} Appellant then filed the instant appeal, raising two assignments of error for our review:
1. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied A.L.H.'s application on the basis that the underlying offense was an abuse of power of public trust.
2. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant's application without first determining whether he had been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the court.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 14} For ease of analysis, we will address the assignments of error out of order.
{¶ 15} Appellant's second assignment of error argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant's application without first determining whether he had been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the court.
{¶ 16} In reviewing the denial of a petition to seal a record under R.C. 2953.32,[1] we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard. Bedford v. Bradberry, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100285, 2014-Ohio-2058, ¶ 5, citing State v. Hilbert, 145 Ohio App.3d 824, 827, 764 N.E.2d 1064 (8th Dist.2001).
{¶ 17} Only an "eligible offender" may apply to have his or her record of conviction sealed. R.C. 2953.32(A)(1). Hence, the court to which the application is made "shall" first "[determine whether the applicant is an eligible offender R.C. 2953.32(C)(1)(a). "If the court finds the applicant is an eligible offender, it must then employ its discretion in weighing a number of substantive considerations in
favor or against the sealing of the applicant's record." State v. T.D., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111307, 2022-Ohio-3741, ¶ 7, citing R.C. 2953.32(C).
{¶ 18} There is no dispute in this matter that appellant is an eligible offender. Thus, under former R.C. 21953.32(C),[2] the court was then required to (1) determine whether criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant; (2) determine whether the applicant had been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the court; (3) consider the reasons presented by the prosecutor against granting the application; and (4) weigh the interests of the applicant in having the records pertaining to the applicant's conviction sealed against the legitimate needs, if any, of the government to maintain those records.
{¶ 19} The court outlined the above requirements at the hearing on remand and stated that it did not believe that there were any criminal proceedings pending against appellant and that the legitimate interests of the government in maintaining the record of conviction outweighed appellant's application. The court did not make any determination as to whether appellant had been rehabilitated to the court's satisfaction.
{¶ 20} It is the applicant's burden to demonstrate legitimate reasons, as opposed to a general privacy interest, why the records should not remain open to the public. State v. J.D., 2013-Ohio-4706, 1 N.E.3d 434, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Haney, 70 Ohio App.3d 135, 590 N.E.2d 445...
To continue reading
Request your trial