Summary
This Supreme Court of Ohio decision addresses whether a court-ordered restitution payment labeled as a civil judgment exempts an offender from satisfying it before applying to seal criminal conviction records. The court held that restitution imposed in a criminal sentencing entry remains a criminal sanction under R.C. 2929.18, regardless of how the trial court labels it. Consequently, full payment of restitution is a mandatory prerequisite for achieving a final discharge and becoming eligible to apply for record sealing under R.C. 2953.32. The appellate court's judgment was reversed and the case remanded for consideration of constitutional arguments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a restitution order entered as a civil judgment in a criminal sentencing entry remains a criminal sanction that must be satisfied before a final discharge for purposes of R.C. 2953.32.
- Whether payment of restitution is required before an offender may apply to have his record of conviction sealed.
Holdings
- A restitution order, even when labeled a civil judgment, is a sanction that is part of the criminal sentence and must be paid before the offender is eligible for a final discharge and thus before sealing the record.
- Restitution must be fully paid before an offender is eligible to apply for sealing of his conviction record.
Key quotations
“No matter the label given to a restitution order in a sentencing entry, it remains a sanction that is part of the sentence. Therefore, restitution must be paid before the offender is eligible to apply to have the record of his convictions sealed.” (¶ 3)
“A “sentence” is “the sanction or combination of sanctions imposed by the sentencing court on an offender who is convicted of or pleads guilty to an offense.” R.C. 2929.01(EE).” (¶ 12)
Factual background
In June 2004 T.W.C. pleaded guilty to two counts of fifth-degree forgery and was sentenced to concurrent nine‑month terms with an order to pay $2,663 restitution, entered as a civil judgment. After serving his sentence, he applied in December 2022 to seal his convictions; the State objected because restitution remained unpaid. The trial court granted sealing, the appellate court affirmed, and the Supreme Court reviewed the issue.
Procedural history
The trial court granted T.W.C.'s application to seal his convictions despite unpaid restitution. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed and remanded for consideration of constitutional arguments.
Remand instructions
Remand the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of T.W.C.’s constitutional arguments.