[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, 2018 
ATTORNEYS 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 44113 
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J.: 

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

official records without a hearing. 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 concealed weapons. He was sentenced to 

one year of community control sanctions, fined $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 application to seal his record without a hearing.” In response, 

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

the trial court was required to hold 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 prosecutor 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 statute 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 required 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 application without holding a hearing. 

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

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

{¶8} Judgment reversed and remanded 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 recover of appellee costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable 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 Appellate Procedure. 

 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR