Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery
Appeal from Common Pleas Court T.C. NO. 15-CR-641
B. PETERS, Atty. Reg. No. 0093945, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.
L. PINCHOT, Atty. Reg. No. 0071648, Attorney for
1} S.D.A. appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery
County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her application to
seal the record of the proceedings against her. For the
following reasons, the trial court's judgment will be
reversed, and the matter will be remanded for further
Facts and Procedural History
2} On April 1, 2015, S.D.A. was indicted for
violating the terms of a protection order, in violation of
R.C. 2919.27(A)(1). Because S.D.A. had previously been
convicted of violating a protection order, the offense was a
felony of the fifth degree. R.C. 2919.27(B)(3). S.D.A.
requested, and the trial court granted, intervention in lieu
of conviction (ILC), pursuant to R.C. 2951.041. On November
22, 2016, the trial court found that S.D.A. had successfully
completed ILC, that she had received the maximum benefit from
the drug treatment facility or program, and that the
treatment had served its intended purpose; the court ordered
that S.D.A.'s case be dismissed.
3} On December 1, 2016, S.D.A., pro se, filed an
"application for sealing of record after not guilty
finding, dismissal of proceedings or no true bill, "
pursuant to R.C. 2953.52(A). The State did not file an objection
to the application.
4} There is no indication in the trial court's
docket that the trial court scheduled a hearing on the
application, and there is nothing in the record to show that
S.D.A. (or the prosecutor) received notice of a hearing.
However, the State has supplemented the record with a
transcript of a January 10, 2017 hearing. The entire
transcript of that hearing reads:
(TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2017, 11:19 A.M.)
THE COURT: On page 11, 14CR4315 and 15CR641, State of Ohio
versus [S.D.A.]. The matter is set for hearing on the
defendant's motion to seal the record. [S.D.A.].
THE BAILIFF: Your Honor, there was no response from the
THE COURT: All right. After reviewing the record, the Court
finds that there is a governmental need to maintain the
record of the dismissal of these two cases. The defendant has
prior convictions for violation of protection orders which
are the offenses in this case. Given the serious nature of
the offenses and all of the circumstances, I will find that
there is a ...