Background
In 2000, Dorrian A. Harden pleaded guilty to attempted possession of cocaine, a third-degree felony, and carrying a concealed weapon, a fourth-degree felony. He received an aggregate one-year prison sentence. A 2023 application to seal the convictions was denied because his criminal history made him statutorily ineligible.
In December 2025, Harden filed a pro se application captioned as seeking expungement, although its body also referred to sealing. At the February 2026 hearing, he confirmed that the matter involved expungement. The trial court denied the application under Ohio Revised Code § 2953.32(A)(1)(h), citing his felony record. Harden appealed, arguing that the court applied the wrong standard, relied on inaccurate or incomplete information about his Kentucky record, and denied him a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. It held that the trial court did not err by treating Harden’s filing as an expungement application because he captioned it that way, confirmed that characterization at the hearing, and did not object when the court discussed expungement eligibility. In any event, § 2953.32(A)(1)(h) governs eligibility for both sealing and expungement, so treating the application as one for expungement did not prejudice him.
The court declined to consider a Kentucky expungement document attached to Harden’s appellate brief because it had not been made part of the trial-court record. It also rejected his claim that he lacked a meaningful opportunity to be heard: the trial court allowed him to respond and did not prevent him from offering evidence. Because the court found him statutorily ineligible—a finding he did not directly challenge on appeal—evidence concerning rehabilitation, elapsed time, hardship, and the government’s interest in retaining the records was immaterial.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio Revised Code § 2953.32(A)(1)(h) imposes the same relevant eligibility restriction on applications for sealing and expungement.
- An appellate court ordinarily will not consider documents attached to a brief that were never made part of the trial-court record.
- Rehabilitation, hardship, and similar discretionary considerations do not affect the result when the applicant fails the threshold statutory-eligibility requirement.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that record-clearing applicants must first establish statutory eligibility and must place supporting documents into the trial-court record. Evidence submitted for the first time on appeal cannot cure an evidentiary omission below.