State v. M.L.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. M.L., 2017-Ohio-2764.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 105214 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. M.L. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: VACATED AND REMANDED Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-11-549656-A BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Keough, A.J., and Celebrezze, J. RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 11, 2017 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Gregory B. Mathews Fusco, Mackey, Mathews & Gill, L.L.P. 655 Cooper Road Westerville, Ohio 43081-8962 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Diane Smilanick Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: {¶1} M.L. appeals the trial court’s decision that denied a motion to seal the record of his conviction, entered without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. It is well settled that under R.C. 2953.32(B) the trial court is required to hold a hearing before resolving such a motion. State v. M.R., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104712, 2017-Ohio-973, ¶ 10, citing State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636, 1996-Ohio-440, 665 N.E.2d 669; State v. Saltzer, 14 Ohio App.3d 394, 471 N.E.2d 872 (8th Dist.1984). A trial court must first hold a hearing because, generally, evidence is required in order to make the several determinations under R.C. 2953.32(C)(1)(a) through (e). Id., citing State v. J.K., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96574, 2011-Ohio-5675, ¶ 15, and State v. Haney, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 99AP-159, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 5524 (Nov. 23, 1999). {¶2} The state concedes that error occurred. However, the error was not the trial court’s alone. In the brief in opposition to M.L.’s motion, the state asked the trial court to either deny the motion outright or to set the matter for a hearing if the trial court was considering granting the request to seal the records. This appeal could have been avoided had the state presented the trial court with the applicable case law as it did in the appellate brief. Further, the state’s sole argument against sealing the conviction was based on M.L.’s failure to pay $240 in supervision fees. state’s brief, M.L. paid the fee. Immediately after receiving the Evidently, he had been unaware it was outstanding. The trial court denied M.L.’s motion several months later. M.L. is entitled to a hearing; therefore, we vacate the order denying his motion and remand for further proceedings consistent with R.C. 2953.32. It is ordered that appellant recover from 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. SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
