State v. Neal
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Neal, 2017-Ohio-8444.] COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vsCase No. 16-CA-38, 16-CA-40 DUSTIN E. NEAL Defendant-Appellant OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court, Case Nos. 11-CR-546, 12-CR-224 JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 3, 2017 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant R. KYLE WITT Prosecuting Attorney ANDREA GREEN BOYD Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 239 W. Main Street Lancaster, Ohio 43130 SCOTT P. WOOD Conrad/Wood 120 East Main Street, Suite 200 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 Fairfield County, Case No. 16-CA-38, 16-CA-40 2 Hoffman, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Dustin E. Neal appeals the judgments entered by the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court overruling his motions to seal records. Plaintiffappellee is the state of Ohio. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 {¶2} On December 9, 2011, Appellant was indicted on one count of rape of a three-year-old child (Case Number 2011-CR-546). The charge was dismissed without prejudice on June 14, 2012, due to a superseding indictment in Case Number 2012-CR224. {¶3} Appellant was indicted on multiple felonies, including rape and gross sexual imposition involving the same three-year-old child, on June 1, 2012, in Case Number 2012-CR-224. The charges were dismissed without prejudice on May 24, 2013. Appellee has not re-filed any charges related to these allegations. {¶4} Appellant filed motions to seal the record in both cases. On September 21, 2016, the trial court overruled the motion as to Case Number 2012-CR-224, and the court overruled the motion as to Case Number 2011-CR-546 on October 18, 2016. The trial court found Appellant was not statutorily eligible to have his records sealed in either case because the statute of limitations had not expired. {¶5} Appellant filed an appeal in both cases, and we consolidated the appeals with Case Number 16-CA-38 controlling. In his brief, Appellant conceded this Court had ruled contrary to his position in State v. Dye, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 15-CA-65, 2016-Ohio- 1 A rendition of the facts is unnecessary for our disposition of this appeal. Fairfield County, Case No. 16-CA-38, 16-CA-40 3 5065. However, Dye was pending before the Ohio Supreme Court on a certified conflict with the decision of the Eighth District in State v. C.K., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99886, 2013-Ohio-5135. Accordingly this Court stayed the appeal sua sponte until the Supreme Court issued an opinion or otherwise resolved Dye. {¶6} The Ohio Supreme Court issued a merit opinion on September 27, 2017, and we have lifted the stay. Appellant assigns a single error: {¶7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT APPELLANT WAS STATUTORILY INELIGIBLE TO SEAL RECORDS OF DISMISSED CHARGES. {¶8} In State v. Dye, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-7823, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court, and held R.C. 2953.52 does not require the relevant statute of limitations to expire before a trial court can grant an application to seal the records of a case dismissed without prejudice. {¶9} Accordingly, Appellant’s assignment of error is sustained. {¶10} The judgment of the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court is reversed. This case is remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law. By: Hoffman, J. Delaney, P.J. and Baldwin, J. concur Fairfield County, Case No. 16-CA-38, 16-CA-40 4
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.
