[Cite as State v. T.A. , 2018-Ohio-2406.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 106921

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

T.A.

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-06-477202-A

BEFORE: Jones, J., E.A. Gallagher, A.J., and Kilbane, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 21, 2018ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Mark A. Stanton Cuyahoga County Public Defender

BY: Cullen Sweeney Assistant County Public Defender 310 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200 Cleveland, Ohio 44113

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

BY: Diane Smilanick Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113LARRY A. JONES, SR., J.:

{¶1} Defendant-appellant T.A. appeal s the trial court’s denial of his application to seal

official records without a hearin g. The state, pursuant to Loc. App.R. 16(B), concedes the error.

We reverse and remand for a hearing on T.A. ’s application to seal court records.

{¶2} In 2006, T.A. pleaded guilty to carrying c oncealed weapons. He was sentenced to

one year of community control sanctions, fine d $250, and ordered to pay court costs. In 2017,

T.A. filed an application to seal his record of conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.32(A)(1) and

requested a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2953.32(B) . The state opposed the motion and also

requested a hearing. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing.

{¶3} T.A. now appeals, raising one assignment of error for our review: “The trial court

erred when it denied Appellant’s a pplication to seal his record w ithout a hearing.” In response,

the state filed a notice of conced ed error pursuant to Loc.App.R. 16(B), stating that it agrees that

the trial court was required to hol d a hearing and failed to do so.

{¶4} R.C. 2953.52(B)(1) provides that upon the filing of an application to seal official

records:

the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor in the case of the hearing on the application. The prosecu tor may object to the granting of the application by filing an objection with the court prior to the date set for the hearing. The prosecutor shall specify in the objection the reasons the prosecutor believes justify a denial of the application.

{¶5} The hearing is a mandatory requirement under R.C. 2953.52(B); an application to

seal records under this statut e cannot be summarily denied. State v. J.M. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 106920, 2018-Ohio-2048, ¶ 4, citing State v. Davis , 175 Ohio App.3d 318, 2008-Ohio-753,

886 N.E.2d 916, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.). The hearing is requi red in order to weigh the interests of the

appellant and the state. J.M.
, at id. , citing State v. Delgado , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102653,2015-Ohio-5256, ¶ 17.

{¶6} Here, the trial court summarily denied T.A.’s applica tion without holding a hearing.

The trial court therefore erred in failing to comply with th e requirements of R.C. 2953.52(B).

{¶7} T.A.’s sole assignment of error is sustained.

{¶8} Judgment reversed and remande d for the trial court to consider T.A.’s application to

seal the record in accordance with the procedure outlined in R.C. 2953.52(B).

It is ordered that appellant rec over of appellee costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reas onable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas

court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the

Rules of Appella te Procedure.

LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR