Court Opinion

ID: 9391791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 13:07:07.182954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:13.199697
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Ofori, 2023-Ohio-1460.]

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                       HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,                              :        APPEAL NOS. C-220367
                                                                  C-220368
       Plaintiff-Appellee,                  :                     C-220369
                                                                  C-220370
 vs.                                        :        TRIAL NOS. C-11CRB-4218
                                                                15CRB-34430A
JESSE OFORI,                                :                   C-12CRB-20695
                                                                C-14CRB-11414
    Defendant-Appellant.                    :

                                                           O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 3, 2023

Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney,
and Connor E. Wood, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee City of
Cincinnati,

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Ohio,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Sarah Nelson, Assistant
Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ZAYAS, Judge.

       {¶1}   Jesse Ofori appeals the denial of his applications to seal his

misdemeanor convictions arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it

found that the government’s interest in maintaining the records as public outweighed

his interest in having the records sealed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the

judgments of the trial court.

                                   Background

       {¶2}   In March 2022, Ofori filed applications to seal the records of a 2011

conviction for forgery and two convictions for unauthorized use of property, one in

2012 and one in 2016. A month later, the trial court conducted a hearing where Ofori

appeared without counsel. The trial court denied the applications after finding that

the “government interest outweighs applicant’s interest in sealing record” and

“insufficient evidence of rehabilitation (subsequent arrests/convictions).” Ofori did

not appeal.

       {¶3}   Two months later, Ofori again filed applications to seal the same records

plus the records of a 2014 criminal-damaging conviction, noting on the applications

that he was now employed. At the hearing in July 2022, both the city and county

prosecutors informed the court that they had no objections to the sealing of the

records. The trial court asked Ofori what had changed since the prior applications.

Counsel responded that Ofori had representation to explain his efforts at

rehabilitation. Ofori, a father of four with a fifth child on the way, had recently

obtained his associate’s degree in business administration. An unidentified speaker

further explained that Ofori had resolved all of his past issues regarding his driver’s

                                              2
                          OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

license and would obtain his license on December 4, 2022, to prevent future traffic

offenses related to driving without a license.1

          {¶4}    The court addressed Ofori who informed the court that as he has grown

older and become a father, he realized that he must provide a better example for his

children, and he must do better.            Since his last application, Ofori had secured

employment at Gates where he drives a vehicle, picks auto parts, and selects autos.

Ofori further explained that having completed a program in business administration,

he planned to transfer to Wilmington College to obtain a bachelor’s degree.

          {¶5}    The court noted a reference in the probation report about immigration

proceedings in 2014 and inquired about his immigration status. Ofori responded that

he is a permanent resident.

          {¶6}    After addressing Ofori, the court noted the “subsequent contacts with

the criminal justice [system]” and reaffirmed its previous opinion that Ofori presented

insufficient evidence of rehabilitation. The court noted a 2017 dismissed domestic-

violence charge, a 2018 OVI charge that resulted in a conviction for reckless operation,

a second reckless-operation conviction in 2018, and nonpayment of court costs in

2019. Further, the court commented that several of Ofori’s charges were crimes of

dishonesty that were reduced to lesser offenses and concluded that the government

interest in maintaining public access to the records outweighed his interest in having

them sealed. The court denied the applications.

          {¶7}    After the denial, the unidentified speaker asked the court to articulate

the government interest. The court responded “all of the citizens of this community,

there is a public interest in maintaining public records and public access to what goes

1   Ofori had numerous convictions for driving under suspension.

                                                     3
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

on in the courtrooms of Hamilton County and throughout the jurisdiction.” Seeking

clarification, the speaker questioned whether it was due to the number of

misdemeanors or the crimes of dishonesty and reminded the court that the legislature

determined that all of the offenses were eligible to be sealed.

       {¶8}    In response, the court explained that the legislature does not require

courts to grant all applications and instead requires the court to balance the competing

interests, and in this circumstance, the government interest outweighed the

applicant’s interest. The court assured the speaker that the decision was not based on

the crimes of dishonesty.

       {¶9}    Ofori now appeals, and in one assignment of error, he contends that the

trial court abused its discretion in denying the applications to seal. Specifically, he

argues that the court’s finding that the government’s interest in maintaining the

records outweighed his interest in having the records sealed was not supported by

sound reasoning. Notably, the state and the city do not defend the trial court’s finding

on appeal. Instead, the state and city contend that Ofori’s applications were barred by

the doctrine of res judicata.

                                    Res Judicata

       {¶10} Ohio courts have held that the doctrine of res judicata ordinarily

prohibits successive applications to seal a conviction. See State v. Bailey, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 26464, 2015-Ohio-3791, ¶ 16-18; State v. Singo, 9th Dist. Summit

No. 27094, 2014-Ohio-5335, ¶ 12; In re Sealing of the Record of Brown, 10th Dist.

Franklin No. 07AP-715, 2008-Ohio-4105, ¶ 10. Res judicata does not bar successive

applications where there is a showing of changed or new circumstances. State v. Cope,

111 Ohio App.3d 309, 311-312, 676 N.E.2d 141 (1st Dist.1996), abrogated on other

                                               4
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

grounds, State v. Boykin, 138 Ohio St.3d 97, 2013-Ohio-4582, 4 N.E.3d 980.

       {¶11} Here, the state never asserted res judicata in the trial court and cannot

raise it now on appeal. See State v. Rojas, 180 Ohio App.3d 52, 2008-Ohio-6339, 904

N.E.2d 541, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.) (“not having so objected [to the successive application] in

the trial court proceeding, the State has forfeited its right to argue res judicata on

appeal”); State v. Delgado, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. CR-05-466377-A, 2015-Ohio-

5256, ¶ 15 (“The state never asserted res judicata in the trial court, however, and

cannot raise it now on appeal.”); State v. Walls, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79196, 2001

Ohio App. LEXIS 5188, 7 (Nov. 21, 2001) (res judicata is an affirmative defense that is

waived if not timely asserted); State v. Skoglund, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 46988, 1983

Ohio App. LEXIS 15958, 4 (Nov. 3, 1983) (“the failure to raise the defense of res

judicata at the trial level precludes a party from raising it at a later time”). Accordingly,

the state and city have forfeited the right to argue res judicata on appeal.

       {¶12} In a related argument, the state and city contend that the transcript

from the hearing on Ofori’s first applications is necessary to resolve this appeal

because the trial court stated that its “opinion on these matters is the same as it was in

April.” The state further insists that the probation report relied upon by the trial court

was not made part of the record on appeal. Without the transcript from the initial

hearing, they urge this court to presume the regularity of the proceedings and affirm

the judgments. Generally, when the appellant has failed in his duty to ensure that this

court has the record necessary to the resolution of assigned errors, this court must

presume the regularity of the lower court’s proceedings and affirm the judgment of the

trial court. See, e.g., Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400

                                                 5
                        OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

N.E.2d 384 (1980); State v. Patterson, 128 Ohio App.3d 174, 177-178, 714 N.E.2d 409

(1st Dist.1998).

          {¶13} However, the trial court was aware of the previous applications and

inquired about the change in circumstances that prompted the successive

applications. Satisfied that the circumstances had changed, the trial court proceeded

to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the new applications. The record before us

includes a transcript of the hearing and the probation report. Therefore, the transcript

of the initial hearing is not required to resolve whether the trial court erred in denying

Ofori’s subsequent applications to seal.

                                  Standard of Review

          {¶14} Generally, a trial court’s decision to grant or deny an application to seal

records is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. R.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos.

C-210169, C-210170, C-210171, C-210172 and C-210173, 2022-Ohio-1108, ¶ 7. An

abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the

attitude of the trial court was “unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore

v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “[A]n abuse of discretion

occurs when a trial court’s judgment does not comport with reason or the record.” R.S.

at ¶ 8.

                                   Law and Analysis

          {¶15} “In Ohio, sealing an individual’s criminal record is an act of grace

created by the state.” Id. at ¶ 10. The statutes governing sealing are remedial in nature

and “must be liberally construed to promote their purposes.” State ex rel. Gains v.

Rossi, 86 Ohio St.3d 620, 622, 716 N.E.2d 204 (1999). The purpose of expungement,

or sealing a record of conviction, is to recognize that people may be rehabilitated. State

                                                 6
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

v. Petrou, 13 Ohio App.3d 456, 456, 469 N.E.2d 974 (9th Dist.1984). As the Eighth

District Court of Appeals explained, in enacting the expungement provisions, the

legislature recognized, that “people make mistakes, but that afterwards they regret

their conduct and are older, wiser, and sadder. The enactment and amendment of R.C.

2953.31 and 2953.32 is, in a way, a manifestation of the traditional Western

civilization concepts of sin, punishment, atonement, and forgiveness.” State v. M.D.,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92534, 2009-Ohio-5694, ¶ 8, quoting State v. Boddie, 170

Ohio App.3d 590, 2007-Ohio-626, 868 N.E.2d 699, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.), quoting State v.

Hilbert, 145 Ohio App.3d 824, 827, 764 N.E.2d 1064 (8th Dist.2001).

       {¶16} In reviewing an application, R.C. 2953.32(C)(1) states that the court

shall do each of the following:

       (a) Determine whether the applicant is an eligible offender;

       (b) Determine whether criminal proceedings are pending against the

       applicant;

       (c) If the applicant is an eligible offender who applies pursuant to

       division (A)(1) of this section, determine whether the applicant has been

       rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the court;

       (d) If the prosecutor has filed an objection in accordance with division

       (B) of this section, consider the reasons against granting the application

       specified by the prosecutor in the objection;

       (e) Weigh the interests of the applicant in having the records pertaining

       to the applicant’s conviction or bail forfeiture sealed against the

       legitimate needs, if any, of the government to maintain those records.

                                                7
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶17} In this case, the court denied the application after finding that Ofori was

not sufficiently rehabilitated, and that the state’s need to maintain the records

outweighed his interest in sealing the records. On appeal, Ofori challenges the court’s

finding that the state’s interest outweighs his, but does not challenge the insufficient-

rehabilitation finding.

       {¶18} This case is similar to R.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-210169, C-210170,

C-210171, C-210172 and C-210173, 2022-Ohio-1108, State v. A.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton

No. C-220259, 2022-Ohio-3833, and State v. McVean, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-

210459 and C-210460, 2022-Ohio-2753. In all three cases, the same trial court judge

determined sua sponte that the state’s interest in maintaining the records outweighed

the applicants’ interest in having the records sealed, without specifying a legitimate

governmental interest. R.S. at ¶ 28-29; A.S. at ¶ 15; McVean at ¶ 13-14.

       {¶19} In all three cases, this court reversed the trial court due to the lack of a

legitimate government interest to support the decisions. R.S. at ¶ 22 (“The trial court’s

finding that the state’s interests outweighed R.S.’s interests belies the facts and

circumstances of the case.); A.S. at ¶ 15 (“On these facts, the trial court invoked no

cognizable legitimate government interest to support its decision to deny A.S.’s

application to seal her record. Indeed, its rationale would mean that virtually no one

would ever qualify for sealing their records, which represents the antithesis of

‘liberally’ construing the statute.”); McVean at ¶ 13 (“The state seemed content with

sealing for Mr. McVean, but the trial court refused to accept that outcome, going out

of its way to divine a justification that even the state didn't seriously advance.”).

       {¶20} Even if this court agrees that the trial court abused its discretion in

determining that an unidentified governmental interest outweighed Ofori’s legitimate

                                                8
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

interest in having the records sealed, the trial court made a second finding to justify

denying the application. The court found that Ofori was not sufficiently rehabilitated,

and he does not challenge the insufficient-rehabilitation finding on appeal.

       {¶21} Thus this court is constrained to affirm the judgments of the trial court

based upon its finding that Ofori had not been rehabilitated to the court’s satisfaction.

                                     Conclusion

       {¶22} We overrule the sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s

judgments.

                                                                   Judgments affirmed.

CROUSE, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.

       Please note:
              The court has recorded its own entry this date.

                                               9