State v. M.F.

Summary

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant M.F.’s application to seal his criminal record, concluding that the record supported a finding that restitution had been paid and final discharge achieved. The court remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying that the record was sealed rather than expunged. A dissent argued that the record did not establish full payment of restitution or final discharge.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not err in finding that M.F. had satisfied the restitution obligation and therefore had achieved final discharge, a prerequisite to eligibility for sealing under R.C. 2953.32.
2. The trial court’s order granting M.F.’s application must be clarified nunc pro tunc to state that the conviction records are sealed, not expunged.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding that M.F. had achieved final discharge through payment of restitution and therefore was eligible to have his conviction records sealed.
2. Whether the trial court’s order should be corrected because it used the term expungement even though M.F. applied for, and the parties litigated, record sealing.

Disposition

affirmed