State v. H.M.

Summary

The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio vacated the trial court’s judgment granting H.M.’s motion to seal or expunge his criminal record and remanded with instructions to vacate that judgment. The court held that H.M. had not achieved final discharge because he had not paid the restitution ordered as part of his sentence, notwithstanding the victim’s reimbursement by the Ohio Supreme Court Client Security Fund. The court also concluded that H.M. failed to present evidence establishing the statutory requirements for record sealing or expungement.

Holdings

1. H.M. was not finally discharged because he had not paid the full restitution amount ordered by the trial court. Compensation of the victim by the Client Security Fund and execution of a cognovit note did not constitute payment in full or final discharge.
2. The trial court erred by granting H.M.'s motion without determining whether he satisfied the remaining requirements of R.C. 2953.32, including rehabilitation and the balancing of his privacy interests against the government's legitimate need to maintain the record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether H.M. achieved final discharge of the restitution condition of his sentence when the victim was compensated by the Client Security Fund but H.M. had not fully reimbursed the Fund and had executed only a cognovit note.
2. Whether H.M. established the other statutory requirements for sealing or expunging his conviction record, including rehabilitation, under R.C. 2953.32.

Disposition

vacated