Background
K.N. obtained expungement of records for two fifth-degree-felony drug-possession convictions from 2000 and 2003. He also obtained sealing of records in two felony cases that had been dismissed, one in 2003 and one in 2013.
When the common pleas court ruled, K.N. was serving community-control sanctions on an East Cleveland Municipal Court misdemeanor conviction and federal supervised release on a Northern District of Ohio felony conviction. The State appealed all four rulings, arguing that this supervision constituted pending criminal proceedings that barred relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed. It held that supervision, by itself, is not a pending criminal proceeding under Ohio’s expungement and record-sealing statutes, R.C. 2953.32 and 2953.33. A criminal proceeding is the formal process for determining guilt or innocence, while community-control and supervised-release supervision are sanctions or post-conviction supervision rather than separate criminal proceedings.
The court adopted the First District’s approach that a criminal case is no longer pending once conviction and sentencing have occurred, even if the person remains subject to supervision. It declined to follow decisions treating a case as pending throughout community control because the sentencing court retains jurisdiction. The court also declined to consider the State’s rehabilitation argument because the State had not raised it in the trial court.
Key Takeaways
- Unrelated community control or federal supervised release does not itself make a criminal proceeding “pending” for Ohio record-sealing or expungement purposes.
- A court’s continuing jurisdiction over supervision does not transform that supervision into an ongoing criminal prosecution.
- An appellate party ordinarily cannot raise a statutory eligibility argument, such as rehabilitation, for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision resolves the issue for Ohio’s Eighth District by allowing otherwise eligible applicants to seek sealing or expungement while serving supervision in unrelated cases. It creates a district-level split with Ohio appellate decisions that treat active community control as keeping the underlying case pending.