State v. Coffelt

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State v. Coffelt, 2022-Ohio-4622.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HARRISON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. JAMES COFFELT, AKA JAMES R. COFFELT, Defendant-Appellee. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 22 HA 0004 Criminal Appeal from the Harrison County Court of Harrison County, Ohio Case Nos. CRB 1900088, CRB 1900276 BEFORE: David A. D’Apolito, Gene Donofrio, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. JUDGMENT: Reversed, Vacated, and Remanded. Atty. Lauren E. Knight, Harrison County Prosecutor, and Atty. Jack L. Felgenhauer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Harrison County Prosecutor’s Office, 111 West Warren Street, P.O. Box 248, Cadiz, Ohio 43907 for Plaintiff-Appellant and Atty. Travis Collins, 105 Jamison Avenue, Cadiz, Ohio 43907, for Defendant-Appellee. Dated: December 13, 2022 -2D’APOLITO, J. {¶1} Appellant, the State of Ohio (“the State”), appeals from the April 27, 2022 judgment of the Harrison County Court granting Appellee’s, R. James Coffelt (“Coffelt”), application to seal his record of conviction following a hearing. On appeal, the State argues the trial court erred in sealing Coffelt’s record while he had a pending community control sentence in another matter and in finding that Coffelt had been rehabilitated. For the reasons stated, we reverse and vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶2} On April 18, 2019, in Case No. CRB 1900088, a criminal complaint was filed in Harrison County Court against Coffelt for disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2917.11. On April 29, 2019, Coffelt entered a no contest plea to the charge. The trial court found Coffelt guilty and fined him $100 plus court costs. {¶3} On October 15, 2019, in Case No. CRB 1900276, a criminal complaint was filed in Harrison County Court against Coffelt for menacing, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2903.22(A) and (B). Three days later, Coffelt filed a written plea of not guilty. Thereafter, the scheduled bench trial was converted to a change of plea hearing. On February 26, 2020, Coffelt entered a no contest plea to persistent disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2917.11. The trial court found Coffelt guilty, sentenced him to 30 days in jail (30 days suspended), placed him on supervised probation for six months, and fined him $250 plus court costs. Coffelt’s probation was terminated on September 2, 2020. {¶4} The record also reveals that on November 3, 2021, Coffelt entered a no contest plea in Harrison County Court, Case No. TRC 21 00916A, for OVI, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). The trial court found Coffelt guilty, sentenced him to 180 days in jail (177 days suspended), placed him on supervised probation for an initial term of 12 months or until all orders are met (whichever is longer), and fined him $1,075 ($700 suspended), plus court costs. {¶5} On February 25, 2022, Coffelt filed an application to seal his record of conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.32 in Case Nos. CRB 1900088 and CRB 1900276. On March 7, 2022, the State filed a response in opposition arguing that Coffelt has pending Case No. 22 HA 0004 -3probation in Harrison County Court (Case No. TRC 21 00916A), has subsequent convictions for violations of R.C. 4511.19, and has not been rehabilitated. {¶6} A hearing was held on March 30, 2022. {¶7} The State stressed that the application to seal be denied because Coffelt “has a pending OVI case and * * * is on probation for OVI with the Harrison County Court, having pled * * * November 3 of 2021 * * * and was sentenced on that [date in Case No.] TRC 21-00916A[.]” (3/30/2022 Hearing Tr., p. 3). The State also argued that Coffelt had not been rehabilitated to its satisfaction because he failed BAC tests on the ignition interlock device that was required to be on his vehicle for driving privileges while on probation. {¶8} Counsel for Coffelt indicated that R.C. 2953.32 required the court to “determine whether there’s pending criminal proceedings against [Coffelt].” (Id. at p. 5). Coffelt’s representative stated Coffelt was placed on probation but that he did not “believe probation would qualify as a pending proceeding.” (Id.) Counsel argued that Coffelt had been rehabilitated but offered no evidence regarding rehabilitation, criminal history, or driving record. {¶9} The court found “it’s a fact that [Coffelt is] on probation.” (Id. at p. 6). The court revealed its belief that probation is not “a pending matter.” (Id.) The court also stated that Coffelt being on probation was not cause for it to “believe” that Coffelt is not “rehabilitated.” (Id.) {¶10} On April 27, 2022, the trial court granted Coffelt’s application to seal his record, specifically finding: (1) Coffelt is an eligible offender; (2) no criminal proceedings are pending against Coffelt; (3) Coffelt has been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the court; and (4) it is in the best interest of Coffelt to have the records pertaining to his convictions sealed. The State filed a timely appeal and raises two assignments of error. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SEALING DEFENDANT’S RECORD OF CONVICTION WHILE HE HAD A PENDING COMMUNITY CONTROL SENTENCE IN ANOTHER MATTER. Case No. 22 HA 0004 -4{¶11} In its first assignment of error, the State argues the trial court erred in sealing Coffelt’s record while he had a pending community control sentence.1 Like expunging a record, the sealing of a record “‘is an act of grace created by the state,’ and so is a privilege, not a right.” State v. Tauch, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP, 2013-Ohio-5796, quoting State v. Dominy, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP–124, 2013-Ohio-3744, ¶ 5, citing State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531, 533 (2000). In State v. Singh, we held that generally, an appellate court reviews a trial court’s disposition on an application to seal a record under the abuse of discretion standard. 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 19 MA 0141, 2020-Ohio-5604, ¶ 11, citing State v. Burnside, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 08 MA 172, 2009-Ohio-2653, ¶ 12. State v. Jones, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 20 MA 0078, 2021-Ohio-2499, ¶ 9. {¶12} R.C. 2953.32 governs the sealing of records and states in pertinent part: *** (B) Upon the filing of an application under this section, the court shall set a date for a hearing * * *. (C)(1) The court shall * * *: *** (b) Determine whether criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant; *** (f) * * * [D]etermine whether the offender has been rehabilitated to a satisfactory degree. In making the determination, the court may consider all The trial court and attorneys involved in these proceedings referred to Coffelt’s community control as probation. The terms have commonly been used interchangeably to define a period for which an individual is sentenced to community residential sanctions. See State v. J.L., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-91, 2020Ohio-3466, ¶ 3 (“community control (also referred to as ‘probation’)[.])” 1 Case No. 22 HA 0004 -5of the following: (i) The age of the offender; (ii) The facts and circumstances of the offense; (iii) The cessation or continuation of criminal behavior; (iv) The education and employment of the offender; (v) Any other circumstances that may relate to the offender’s rehabilitation. R.C. 2953.32(B) and (C)(1)(b) and (f)(i)-(v). {¶13} When determining whether to seal an applicant’s record, the trial court must first determine if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant and, if so, cannot grant the application. State v. C.S., 2nd Dist. No. 28963, 2021-Ohio-2858, ¶ 11. {¶14} This court disagrees with Coffelt’s request that we “reconsider” our holding in Jones, supra. (7/28/2022 Appellee’s Brief, p. 1). The sole assignment of error in Jones stated: “Trial court erred in denying the defendant-appellant’s applications to seal records herein as being on community control does not equate to pending criminal proceedings.” Jones at ¶ 6. In Jones, we held: Since a trial court retains jurisdiction over a community control sanction that is currently being served by a defendant, the underlying criminal case upon which that community control is based remains pending. It therefore constitutes a “criminal proceeding” that is “pending against the person” under R.C. 2953.32 and 2953.52. Id. at ¶ 19, relying on State v. J.M.S., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-772, 2019-Ohio-3383. {¶15} Contrary to Coffelt’s suggestion, this court still finds that a term of community control constitutes a pending criminal proceeding for purposes of R.C. 2953.32. {¶16} In this case, Coffelt’s offense in Case No. TRC 21 00916A was for OVI, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and he was on Case No. 22 HA 0004 -6community control with Harrison County Court, the same court in which the application to seal his record was filed. Although the court correctly found that Coffelt was on “probation,” it also improperly determined that it is not a pending matter. As stated, community control constitutes a pending criminal proceeding. See J.M.S., supra, at ¶ 11, 16; Jones, supra, at ¶ 19. Coffelt had a criminal proceeding pending against him at the time the trial court granted his application to seal his record. Accordingly, the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and thus erred, in granting Coffelt’s application because he was ineligible to have his record sealed. J.M.S. at ¶ 16; C.S. at ¶ 15, 19. {¶17} The State’s first assignment of error is with merit. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN REHABILITATED WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF REHABILITATION BEING PRESENTED TO THE COURT. {¶18} In its second assignment of error, the State contends the trial court erred in sealing Coffelt’s record because there was no evidence of rehabilitation. {¶19} Based on this court’s disposition in the State’s first assignment of error, we find the State’s second assignment of error moot. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). CONCLUSION {¶20} For the foregoing reasons, the State’s first assignment of error is well-taken, thereby rendering its second assignment moot. The April 27, 2022 judgment of the Harrison County Court granting Coffelt’s application to seal his record of conviction following a hearing is reversed, vacated, and remanded. Donofrio, P.J., concurs. Robb, J., concurs. Case No. 22 HA 0004 For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Harrison County Court of Harrison County, Ohio, is reversed and vacated. We hereby remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings according to law and consistent with this Court’s Opinion. Costs to be taxed against the Appellee. A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution. NOTICE TO COUNSEL This document constitutes a final judgment entry.

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.