[Cite as State v. Black, 2015-Ohio-4256.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 15AP-539 

 (C.P.C. No. 14EP-536) 

v. : 

 (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) 

Aleicia D. Black, : 

 Defendant-Appellee. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

NUNC PRO TUNC1 

Rendered on November 20, 2015 

 

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael P. Walton, 

for appellant. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

BRUNNER, J. 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, State of Ohio, appeals from a decision of the Franklin 

County Court of Common Pleas that granted Aleicia Black's2 application to seal records of 

a criminal conviction. We conclude that Black is ineligible to have her criminal records 

sealed until the expiration of the three-year statutory period in R.C. 2953.32(A)(1), even 

though the trial court found that she had satisfied the requirements of R.C. 2953.32(C). 

We therefore reverse with instructions to dismiss her application to seal her records of a 

criminal conviction.3 

 

1 This decision replaces, nunc pro tunc, the nunc pro tunc decision released October 15, 2015, and is effective 

as of that date. Specifically, this decision indicates Judge Sadler concurs in judgment only. 

2 The record varies the spelling of Black's name between Aleicia and Alecia. The application giving rise to 

this case spells it Aleicia and is the spelling used herein. 

3 We specifically do not determine in our decision what final discharge is for the purposes of sealing criminal 

records when the requirements of a community control sentence are completed after community control has 

been terminated. 
No. 15AP-539 2 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} By entry filed August 7, 2009, Black was convicted of a fifth-degree felony, 

in violation of R.C. 2925.11, entitled "possession of controlled substances," and sentenced 

to a period of 2 years of community control, including a requirement to complete 150 

hours of community service. On July 12, 2011, the probation department requested that 

her probation be revoked based on her failure to complete 115.25 hours of her 150-hour 

community service requirement. The trial court held a hearing on August 2, 2011, and 

concluded that, although Black had not completed her community service requirement, 

probation need not be revoked. Instead, the court terminated Black from probation as 

"Unsuccessful." 

{¶ 3} On August 4, 2014, Black applied to have her conviction records sealed 

pursuant to R.C. 2953.32. On October 9, 2014, the state objected on grounds that Black 

had not completed her community service requirement. The state also noted, "until it can 

be established that applicant has completed community service and fulfilled the 

mandatory waiting period, applicant remains ineligible to seal this record." (Objections, 

2.) The trial court held a hearing on the matter on April 28, 2015. During the hearing, 

Black introduced evidence (a copy of which is in the record before us by way of 

supplemental filing) to show that she had volunteered an additional 116.17 hours through 

Volunteers of America. (Supplemental Record shows 116 hours and 10 minutes.) 

{¶ 4} Based on the fact that Black had been terminated from probation and had 

thereafter completed her community service, the trial court granted Black's application. 

The state now appeals. 

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶ 5} The state advances a single assignment of error for our review: 

THE TRIAL COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO SEAL 

THE RECORD OF CONVICTION, WHERE DEFENDANT 

HAD NOT FULFILLED THE MANDATORY WAITING 

PERIOD. 

III. DISCUSSION 

{¶ 6} Sealing records in Ohio is a two-step process. In the first step, a trial court 

is called on to determine if a person is eligible. The specific requirements for eligibility 

vary depending on whether a person is seeking to seal records of convictions and bail 

forfeitures or seeking to seal records relating to arrests and cases ending in "not guilty" 

findings, dismissals, and "no bill" verdicts. Compare R.C. 2953.32 with 2953.52. When 
No. 15AP-539 3 

an applicant for expungement seeks to seal records of a conviction, he or she must first be 

determined to be an "eligible offender"; that is, a court must determine whether his or her 

criminal record reflects a permissible number of convictions, that the conviction(s) sought 

to be sealed is/are currently eligible to be sealed (based on the time elapsed since the time 

of final discharge and the nature of the conviction), and that no criminal proceedings are 

then currently pending against the applicant. See R.C. 2953.31(A); 2953.32(A) and 

(C)(1)(a) and (b). 

{¶ 7} R.C. 2953.31(A), as amended by 2012 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 337 ("S.B. No. 337") 

expanded the number of offenses subject to sealing of the records (also referred to as 

"expungement" in some circumstances) in determining whether an applicant is an 

"eligible offender": 

[A]nyone who has been convicted of an offense in this state or 

any other jurisdiction and who previously or subsequently has 

not been convicted of the same or a different offense has not 

more than one felony conviction, not more than two 

misdemeanor convictions if the convictions are not of the 

same offense, or not more than one felony conviction and one 

misdemeanor conviction in this state or any other jurisdiction. 

When two or more convictions result from or are connected 

with the same act or result from offenses committed at the 

same time, they shall be counted as one conviction. When two 

or three convictions result from the same indictment, 

information, or complaint, from the same plea of guilty, or 

from the same official proceeding, and result from related 

criminal acts that were committed within a three-month 

period but do not result from the same act or from offenses 

committed at the same time, they shall be counted as one 

conviction, provided that a court may decide as provided in 

division (C)(1)(a) of section 2953.32 of the Revised Code that 

it is not in the public interest for the two or three convictions 

to be counted as one conviction. 

(Emphasis sic.) S.B. No. 337. 

{¶ 8} Under R.C. 2953.32(C)(1)(a) and (b), when a trial court reviews an 

application for the sealing of an adult criminal record, it must determine as a threshold 

question whether an applicant is an "eligible offender" as is set forth in R.C. 2953.32(A) 

and 2953.31(A). A court lacks jurisdiction to seal records when an applicant is not an 

"eligible offender." State v. Dominy, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-124, 2013-Ohio-3744, ¶ 6. 

Whether an applicant is an eligible offender is an issue that we review de novo. State v. 

Tauch, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-327, 2013-Ohio-5796, ¶ 7. 
No. 15AP-539 4 

{¶ 9} Once an applicant has been found to be an eligible offender, the statutes 

require a court to use its discretion to weigh a number of factors that vary, depending on 

whether the person seeks to seal records of convictions and bail forfeitures or records 

relating to arrests and cases ending in dismissals, "not guilty" findings, or "no bill" 

verdicts. Compare R.C. 2953.32 with 2953.52. When considering sealing records of a 

conviction for an eligible offender, a trial court must make statutorily required 

determinations of: (1) whether the applicant has been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of 

the court, (2) whether the reasons, if any, offered by the prosecutor in any written 

objection against sealing the records are persuasive, and (3) whether the interests of the 

applicant in having conviction records sealed outweigh the legitimate needs, if any, of the 

state to maintain those records. R.C. 2953.32(C)(1)(c) through (e). We review a trial 

court's determination on these issues for abuse of discretion. Tauch at ¶ 17. 

{¶ 10} Except as provided in divisions (G), (H), or (I) of R.C. 2953.32, if the trial 

court finds that a person is eligible and using its discretion determines that the facts 

supporting the other required findings should be construed to favor sealing the records of 

conviction, the trial court "shall order all official records of the case that pertain to the 

conviction or bail forfeiture sealed." (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2953.32(C)(2). The sealing 

statutes are remedial and are, therefore, to be construed liberally to promote their 

purpose and assist the parties in obtaining justice. State ex rel. Gains v. Rossi, 86 Ohio 

St.3d 620, 622 (1999), citing R.C. 1.11; Barker v. State, 62 Ohio St.2d 35, 42 (1980). 

{¶ 11} We recently decided a case factually similar to this in State v. Gainey, 10th 

Dist. No. 14AP-583, 2015-Ohio-3119. Gainey had applied for sealing of her records but 

had not completed her community service. Id. at ¶ 5. We explained that one of the 

requirements for sealing the records of a felony is that the application is made " ' "at the 

expiration of three years after the offender's final discharge." ' " Id. at ¶ 10, quoting State 

v. Black, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-338, 2014-Ohio-4827, ¶ 9, quoting R.C. 2953.32(A)(1). 

Then, in reliance on a recent Supreme Court of Ohio case, we noted that an applicant does 

not obtain "final discharge" until the applicant has "served all components of his or her 

sentence." Id. at 11, citing State v. Aguirre, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2014-Ohio-4603, ¶ 18; 

State v. Hoover, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-818, 2013-Ohio-3337, ¶ 7; State v. Pettis, 133 Ohio 

App.3d 618, 619 (8th Dist.1999); Black at ¶ 10; State v. Jordan, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-584, 

2007-Ohio-6383, ¶ 7; In re White, 165 Ohio App.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-233, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.). 

Aguirre and the other cases cited stand for the proposition that restitution is a component 
No. 15AP-539 5 

of an applicant's sentence and must be paid in full before an applicant is considered to 

have obtained "final discharge" for purposes of determining eligibility. See id. at syllabus. 

Gainey extended that holding to community service and reasoned that Gainey was "not 

currently an eligible offender for purposes of the sealing statute" because she had "not 

completed the community service component of her sentence." (Emphasis added.) Id. at 

¶ 14. 

{¶ 12} In this case, unlike in Gainey, Black presented evidence that she completed 

her community service after her community control4 was terminated unsuccessfully. The 

trial court, in its discretion, determined that she satisfied the factors contained in R.C. 

2953.32(C)(1)(a) through (e). However, nothing in Gainey abrogates the waiting period 

set forth in R.C. 2953.32, the waiting period that begins from the date of final discharge. 

R.C. 2953.32(A)(1). Even if final discharge were determined to be the date Black 

completed the remaining community service component of her sentence, Black is 

ineligible to have her criminal records sealed until the expiration of the three-year 

statutory period set forth in R.C. 2953.32(A)(1). Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to 

seal her records. 

{¶ 13} We sustain the state's assignment of error. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

{¶ 14} Because R.C. 2953.32 forbids application for sealing of felony conviction 

records until "the expiration of three years after the offender's final discharge," we 

conclude that she was not an eligible offender at the time the trial court granted her 

application to seal her records. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Franklin 

County Court of Common Pleas and remand with instructions to the trial court to dismiss 

Black's application. 

Judgment reversed and 

 cause remanded with instructions. 

KLATT, J., concurs. 

SADLER, J., concurs in judgment only. 

 

 

4 This decision replaces, nunc pro tunc, the original decision released October 13, 2015, and is effective as 

of that date. This decision replaces the word “service" with "control" in the second line of ¶ 12 to correct a 

clerical error.