Toledo v. Hair , 2023 Ohio 1415 ( 2023 )

[Cite as Toledo v. Hair, 2023-Ohio-1415.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
City of Toledo Court of Appeals No. L-22-1122
Appellee Trial Court No. TRC-18-17788
v.
Christopher Hair DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: April 28, 2023
*****
Rebecca Facey, City of Toledo Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and
Jimmie L. Jones, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Anthony J. Richardson, II., for appellant.
*****
DUHART, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Christopher Hair, appeals from a March 18, 2022 judgment
entered by the Toledo Municipal Court, denying his motion to seal the record in this case.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Statement of the Case and Relevant Facts
Trial Court Proceedings
{¶ 2} On August 6, 2018, Hair was charged, in case No. TRC-18-1788, with OVI
and with failure to reinstate his license. Appellant refused to submit to a breath test and,
as a result, his license was placed under an ALS pursuant to R.C. 4511.191(B)(1).
{¶ 3} On February 4, 2020, the OVI charge was dismissed, and Hair entered a plea
of no contest to the charge of failure to reinstate his license. Despite the OVI charge
having been dismissed, the trial court ordered that the ALS would continue.
{¶ 4} On February 18, 2020, Hair, pro se, filed motion to seal the record in this
case and to terminate the ALS. On April 15, 2020, Hair filed a subsequent motion, listing
charges from previous traffic cases that he also wished to have sealed. Among the cases
listed were case Nos. TRD-13-37604, TRD-15-18029, TRC-15-38331, and TRD-16-
22309. In each case, the motion to seal was denied without a hearing.
{¶ 5} On July 23, 2020, the trial court denied Hair’s motion to seal the record in
case No. TRC-18-1788 without hearing. In a consolidated appeal filed on November 9,
2020, Hair appealed both the trial court’s decision to continue the ALS and the trial
court’s decisions not to seal appellant’s dismissed traffic offenses.
Appeals Court Proceedings
{¶ 6} On June 25, 2021, this court affirmed the trial court’s continuation of the
ALS in case No. TRC-18-1788, but reversed its denial of the motion to seal, holding that
Hair was entitled to a hearing in all of the previous traffic cases. See State v. Hair, 6th
2.
Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1142, L-20-1143, L-20-1144, 2021-Ohio-2136, ¶ 25. The case was
then remanded back to the trial court. See id.Proceedings Following Remand to the Trial Court
{¶ 7} On December 14, 2021, the trial court, on remand, conducted a hearing on
Hair’s motion to seal charges in case No. TRC-18-1788. At the hearing, Hair, appeared
pro se and, speaking on his own behalf, represented to the court that he is a sergeant in
the army and that he began his service in 2007. He asserted, without elaboration, that
sealing his records would benefit his military career. He further stated that sealing his
records would be of use to him when, after he attends law school, he applies to take the
bar exam. He explained that he had been accepted into law school at the University of
Toledo but was deferring his enrollment due to a pending 400-day deployment to Kuwait.
{¶ 8} When the trial court asked Hair whether he had any pending criminal cases
against him, he answered, “Currently, right now I do. * * * The pending charge is in – it’s
a Menacing charge in Common Pleas.” He also admitted to having a “currently” pending
OVI.
{¶ 9} Next, the trial court heard from the state. Arguing against the sealing of
Hair’s records, the state asserted that the public has a right to “observe how OVI cases
are worked out in the state of Ohio,” and that the availability of such information
“keep[s] judges, prosecutors, and public servants accountable.” The state further argued
that there is no way to seal Hair’s cases without also ordering the Bureau of Motor
Vehicles to seal its records, and that such an order would hinder the Bureau’s ability to
3.
properly enforce any future ALS suspensions that might be imposed against Hair. In
making this argument, the state pointed out that, at the time of the hearing, Hair had four
previous OVI allegations against him in the last ten years. Upon further questioning by
the trial court, the state conceded that only one of the past OVI allegations led to a
conviction, and that the conviction was for a reduced charge of reckless operation.
Finally, the state addressed Hair’s interest in having his record sealed, commenting that
even if the record were sealed, Hair would still have to disclose the charges in connection
with his bar exam character and fitness evaluation, thereby negating any claimed benefit.
{¶ 10} After hearing from Hair and from the state, the trial court took the matter
under advisement.
Trial Court Decision
{¶ 11} In a written decision, issued after the hearing, the trial court denied Hair’s
motion to seal on two grounds. First, the trial court found that the motion was not timely,
because at the time Hair presented the motion, he had two criminal cases pending: (1)
TRC-21-09669, which was an OVI case pending in the Toledo Municipal Court; and (2)
CR-2020-01671, which was an “F4” pending in the Lucas County Court of Common
Pleas. Second, the trial court concluded that “the Petitioners [sic] interests do not
outweigh the State’s interest in maintaining the records.”
{¶ 12} It is from this decision that Hair currently appeals.
4.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 13} Appellant raises the following assignment of error on appeal:
I. The trial court abused its discretion to the prejudice of appellant by
denying his motion to seal his criminal record.
Analysis
{¶ 14} Under R.C. 2953.52(A)(1), “[a]ny person * * * who is the defendant named
in a dismissed complaint * * * may apply to the court for an order to seal the person’s
official records in the case.” Upon the filing of an application, the court must set a date
for the hearing and must notify the prosecutor. R.C. 2953.52(B)(1). The prosecutor may
object to the granting of the application by filing with the court, prior to the date set for
the hearing, an objection specifying the reasons that would justify a denial of the
application Id. The court must then: (1) determine whether the complaint was dismissed
with prejudice; (2) determine whether criminal proceedings are pending against the
person; (3) consider the prosecutor’s reasons for objection; and (4) weigh the interests of
the person in having the records sealed against the government’s legitimate needs, if any,
to maintain those records. R.C. 2953.52(B)(2)(a)-(d). “If the court determines * * * that
the complaint * * * was dismissed * * *; that no criminal proceedings are pending against
the person; and [that] the interests of the person in having the records pertaining to the
case sealed are not outweighed by any legitimate governmental needs to maintain such
records, * * * the court shall issue an order directing that all official records pertaining to
5.
the case be sealed and that * * * the proceedings be deemed not to have occurred.” R.C.
2953.52(B)(4).
{¶ 15} “The sealing of a criminal record has been characterized as an ‘act of grace
created by the state.’” State v. T.D., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1149, 2021-Ohio-513, ¶ 15,
citing State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636, 639, 665 N.E.2d 669 (1996). The applicant
has the burden to demonstrate that his interests in having the records sealed are equal to
or greater than the government’s interests in maintaining those records. Id., citing State v.
Harrison, 2018-Ohio-1724, 111 N.E.3d 845, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). (Additional citation
omitted.)
Review
{¶ 16} In general, we review a trial court’s decision regarding an application to
seal records under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at ¶ 16, citing State v. Floyd, 2018-
Ohio-5107, 126 N.E.3d 361, ¶ 4 (1st Dist.). But where “‘the dispute as to the sealing of
records involves a purely legal question, our standard of review is de novo.’” Id., citing
Floyd at ¶ 4.
The trial court did not err in finding that Hair had pending cases.
{¶ 17} Disputing the trial court’s initial finding that Hair was ineligible to have his
record sealed because there were criminal proceedings pending against him in case Nos.
TRC-21-09669 and CR-2020-01671, Hair points out that on June 16, 2022, he was found
not guilty by a jury in case no. TRC-21-09669, and on June 28, 2022, he entered a plea to
a misdemeanor criminal trespass in case no. CR-2020-01671. As indicated above, the
6.
hearing in this case took place on December 14, 2021, and the motion to seal was denied
on March 18, 2022. Although, the written judgment entry is dated July 7, 2022, the
record is clear that at the time of the hearing, and at the time the motion to seal was
denied, both of the above-mentioned cases were still pending. Thus, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that Hair was ineligible to have his record sealed. See
State v. Webb, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 2012-Ohio-2962, ¶ 13 (court observed that there
was no issue regarding other criminal charges, as there were none pending against the
defendant “at the time of the hearing.”); R.C. 2953.52(B)(4).
{¶ 18} In light of this conclusion, Hair’s additional arguments are rendered moot.
Hair’s assignment of error is found not well-taken, and the judgment of the Toledo
Municipal Court is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant
to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
7.