Youngstown Daily Legal News

Court must consider rehabilitation before sealing records, judges rule

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: January 17, 2014

A Franklin County appellate panel recently remanded a woman’s case so that the trial court make further findings before granting her request to seal the record of her convictions.

The 10th District Court of Appeals rejected the state’s argument that Sophy Tauch was ineligible to have her records sealed, but ruled the trial court had to determine if she had been rehabilitated before granting her application.

Case summary states that Tauch filed an application with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to seal the records of her previous misdemeanor convictions in November 2012.

In the cases in question, Tauch pleaded guilty and was convicted of two counts of attempted forgery and one count of attempted theft.

The convictions stemmed from separate events on separate days but Tauch was able to enter guilty pleas for each before the same trial court judge on the same day.

Two months later, the same judge sentenced her for each conviction at a single hearing.

The state argued that she did not qualify as an eligible offender to have her records sealed because of her multiple convictions.

The trial court, however, disagreed and granted her application.

On appeal to the 10th District, the state argued again that Tauch was ineligible to have her records sealed.

Upon review, the three-judge appellate panel held that an applicant with more than two misdemeanor convictions is not typically an eligible offender.

However, it found that the statute explains that “when two or three convictions result from the same indictment, information, or complaint, from the same plea of guilty, or from the same official proceeding, and result from related criminal acts that were committed within a three-month period but do not result from the same act or from offenses committed at the same time, they shall be counted as one conviction.”

The judges found that Tauch’s attempted forgery convictions stemmed from criminal acts that took place within three months of each other and were related in that they involved similar behavior and the same victim.

“Additionally, her convictions do appear to result from the same official proceeding,” Presiding Judge William Klatt wrote for the court.

“As noted in each of the trial court’s judgment entries, Tauch appeared before the trial court on June 27, 2001 and entered guilty pleas to these charges to the same trial court judge. These facts support the conclusion that the guilty pleas were entered at the same time and at the same hearing.”

The judges ruled that the two counts of attempted forgery would merge, leaving Tauch with only two misdemeanor convictions and an eligible offender to have her records sealed.

The state next argued that the trial court failed to determine whether she had been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the court.

Finding no evidence of such determinations, the appellate judges agreed and remanded the case for the lower court to make the required findings.

“The judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas are reversed and this matter is remanded to the trial court to proceed with Tauch’s applications in accordance with R.C. 2953.32.”

Judges Gary Tyack and John Connor concurred.

The case is cited State v. Tauch, 2013-Ohio-5796.

[Back]