The Eighth District Court of Appeals in Ohio has affirmed a trial court’s decision to deny a defendant’s motion to seal his criminal record, ruling that the defendant failed to meet his legal burden of demonstrating legitimate reasons for sealing the records beyond general privacy concerns.
The case involved J.D.B., who appealed the denial of his application to seal records related to his 2021 conviction for attempted telecommunications fraud, attempted identity fraud, and practicing medicine without a license. J.D.B. had resolved the case through a negotiated plea deal, receiving one and a half years of community control, which was successfully completed in 2023.
The Application and the Hearing
In May 2024, J.D.B. applied to seal his record, asserting he met all statutory requirements and that his interest in sealing the record outweighed the State’s interest in maintaining it. Crucially, J.D.B. offered no further explanation or testimony regarding his rehabilitation or specific reasons for needing the records sealed.
The State initially objected due to an unrelated active arrest warrant, but later withdrew its opposition once that matter was resolved.
During the March 2025 hearing, J.D.B.’s counsel argued that the offenses—which involved using his ex-wife’s information to commit fraud—were a “stupid mistake” and a “one time mistake.” Counsel emphasized J.D.B.’s current stability, noting he held a steady job in home security (ADT), handling sensitive customer financial information without issue, suggesting a low likelihood of recidivism.
However, the victim, J.D.B.’s ex-wife, R.B., strongly opposed the sealing. As a practicing physician, she expressed ongoing fear, noting that J.D.B. still possessed her sensitive personal information (Social Security number, birthday) and had previously impersonated her, causing professional harm by nullifying research projects conducted in her name. She testified that she believed he would reoffend if given the chance.
The trial court denied the motion on April 1, 2025, issuing only a brief, one-sentence journal entry without detailing its reasoning.
The Appellate Court’s Reasoning: Burden of Proof
J.D.B. brought two main arguments on appeal. The first claimed the trial court abused its discretion by failing to properly weigh the competing interests.
The Eighth District Court of Appeals clarified the legal standard: sealing records is remedial, intended to recognize rehabilitation, but the applicant bears the burden of proving that their interest in sealing the record outweighs the government’s need to keep it public. This burden requires presenting evidence or testimony supporting the application, not just asserting compliance with eligibility rules.
Judge William A. Klatt, writing for the court, pointed out a critical flaw in J.D.B.’s presentation: “A mere recitation that the applicant complied with the statutory requirements is insufficient to meet the burden. Further, counsel’s arguments at the hearing do not constitute evidence.”
Because J.D.B. himself did not testify or present any evidence beyond his attorney’s summary arguments about his job and character, the appellate court found he failed to demonstrate legitimate reasons for sealing the record beyond general privacy concerns. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Addressing the Lack of Findings
J.D.B.’s second assignment of error argued that the trial court failed to create a sufficient record by issuing only a summary denial, preventing a meaningful appellate review.
The appellate court agreed that trial courts are generally required to articulate their findings when denying such motions. However, the court cited precedent holding that if the applicant fails to testify or present supporting evidence during the hearing, the trial court is not obligated to place detailed findings on the record when denying the application. Since J.D.B. relied solely on his counsel’s statements, the denial of the second assignment of error was also affirmed.
The judgment of the trial court was upheld.