In re J.D.

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 10, 2026
• Docket: C-250372
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re J.D., 2026-Ohio-1310.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN RE: J.D. : APPEAL NO. C-250372 TRIAL NO. MI2018000625 :

: JUDGMENT ENTRY

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 4/10/2026 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as In re J.D., 2026-Ohio-1310.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

: OPINION

Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 10, 2026

Faulkner & Tepe, LLP, and A. Norman Aubin, for Appellee Hamilton County Mental Health and Recovery Services Board,

J.D., pro se. [Cite as In re J.D., 2026-Ohio-1310.]

BOCK, Judge.

{¶1} In this appeal, appellant J.D. challenges the probate court’s decision to

deny his motion to expunge the records of his involuntary-commitment case. But the

probate court lacked the statutory authority to expunge J.D.’s involuntary-

commitment records. Moreover, this court has already ruled that the probate court

lacked inherent authority to expunge those records.

{¶2} Therefore, we overrule the assignment of error and affirm the probate

court’s judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶3} In March 2018, the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court found J.D.

incompetent to stand trial and ordered treatment at Summit Behavioral Healthcare

(“Summit”), a local mental-health facility, to restore his competence under R.C.

2945.38. On August 14, 2018, the trial court found that treatment was unlikely to

restore his competence, dismissed the State’s charges against J.D., initiated “the

procedures set forth in [R.C.] 2945.38(H)(4),” and ordered that J.D. be transported to

Summit until the probate court accepted jurisdiction.

{¶4} That same day, the trial court filed a mental-health affidavit in the

probate court. The probate court issued a temporary order committing J.D. to

Summit. After a hearing on August 17, 2018, the probate court involuntarily

committed J.D. to Summit. In January 2019, J.D. consented to treatment and the

probate court dismissed J.D.’s involuntary-commitment case.

{¶5} In 2022, J.D. asked the probate court to expunge the records of his 2018

involuntary-commitment case, along with records of a different involuntary-

commitment case. After the probate court denied both motions without a hearing, J.D.

appealed. On appeal, we affirmed those judgments “because his mental health OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

proceedings and commitments are already sealed by statute, R.C. 5122.31, and there

is no mechanism for expunging these records under the circumstances at hand.” See

In re J.D., Nos. C-220382 and C-220383 (1st Dist. Aug. 7, 2023) (“In re J.D. I”). We

also rejected J.D.’s argument that the probate court had inherent authority to seal his

records under Pepper Pike v. Doe, 66 Ohio St.2d 374 (1981). Id.

{¶6} In 2023, J.D. filed a second motion to expunge the record of his 2018

involuntary-commitment case. Once again, the probate court denied his motion. We

ultimately dismissed J.D.’s appeal because J.D. misidentified the involuntary-

commitment case number in his notice of appeal. See In re J.D., 2024 Ohio App.

LEXIS 1419, *2 (1st Dist. Apr. 19, 2024) (“In re J.D. II”).

{¶7} In May 2025, J.D. again moved to expunge the records of his 2018

involuntary-commitment case, arguing that “the time frame of emergency admission

was not processed in a time frame” required by R.C. 5144.121. J.D. explained that the

records of his dismissed criminal charges were expunged, and his involuntary-

commitment records affected his job prospects. The trial court denied his motion

without a hearing, and J.D. now appeals.

II. Analysis

{¶8} In a single assignment of error, J.D. argues that the probate court

should have granted his most recent motion to expunge his involuntary-commitment

records. He asserts that his records were eligible for expungement under R.C. 5122.141

and 2953.32, and the probate court’s inherent authority to expunge records.

{¶9} The probate court rejected J.D.’s expungement motion based on this

court’s decision in In re J.D. I. Appellee the Hamilton County Mental Health and

Recovery Services Board argues that the probate court correctly recognized that this

court previously rejected the precise arguments that J.D. raises in this case.

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

A. Law-of-the-case doctrine governs J.D.’s inherent-authority argument

{¶10} Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, “‘“[T]he decision of a reviewing

court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all

subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.”’” Giancola

v. Azem, 2018-Ohio-1694, ¶ 14, quoting Hopkins v. Dyer, 2004-Ohio-6769, ¶ 15,

quoting Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 3 (1984). The law-of-the-case doctrine is

meant to avoid relitigating issues that have been litigated and decided. State v. Paulo,

2007-Ohio-4316, ¶ 6 (1st Dist.). The law-of-the-case doctrine is “a rule of practice

rather than a binding rule of substantive law [] and we will not apply it to achieve

unjust results.” Farmers State Bank v. Sponaugle, 2019-Ohio-2518, ¶ 22.

{¶11} In In re J.D. I, we rejected J.D.’s argument that the probate court could

exercise its inherent authority and expunge his involuntary-commitment records

under Pepper Pike, 66 Ohio St.2d 374. So, under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the

probate court properly rejected J.D.’s most recent request to expunge his involuntary-

commitment records under its alleged inherent authority.

B. J.D.’s statutory arguments fail

{¶12} J.D. asserts that R.C. 5122.141 required his involuntary-commitment

records to be expunged. Further, he maintains that R.C. 2953.32(B)(1)(a)(i) makes

these records eligible for expungement.

{¶13} In In re J.D. I, we concluded that neither R.C. 5122.141(B) nor (C)

applied because J.D. did not raise arguments under those statutory provisions.

Further, we did not consider whether R.C. 2953.32(B)(1)(a)(i) applied, presumably

because J.D. did not present any argument under that statute. The law-of-the-case

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

doctrine does not apply to J.D.’s statutory arguments, so we examine the merits of

those arguments.1

1. J.D.’s records were not eligible for expungement under R.C. 5122.141

{¶14} J.D. argues that R.C. 5122.141 required the probate court to hold a

hearing within five days of his December 2017 arrest and, because his July 2018

competency hearing occurred more than seven months later, the statute dictates that

his involuntary-commitment records must be expunged.

{¶15} The procedures for determining whether a person is competent to stand

trial are separate and distinct from the procedures for determining whether a person

is “mentally ill” and subject to involuntary commitment. In re Burton, 11 Ohio St.3d

147, 151 (1984). When the trial court found that there was not a substantial probability

that J.D.’s competency could be restored, R.C. 2945.38(H)(4) required the trial court

to dismiss J.D.’s criminal charges. A dismissal is the “[t]ermination of an action or

claim without further hearing, esp. before trial of the issues involved.” Black’s Law

1 Generally, a final judgment prevents parties from litigating an issue that was raised and decided

in a prior proceeding, or that could have been raised, under the doctrine of res judicata. See AJ’s Hauling, L.L.C. v. Trunorth Warranty Programs of N. Am., 2023-Ohio-3097, ¶ 15. Ohio courts have held that “applications for expungement are subject to the doctrine of res judicata.” In re Sealing of the Record of Brown, 2008-Ohio-4105, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). The Hamilton County Mental Health and Recovery Services Board did not argue that res judicata applied below or on appeal. Res judicata, like other arguments, can be forfeited. See State v. Ofori, 2023-Ohio-1460, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.); see also Hillman v. Edwards, 2011-Ohio-2677, ¶ 18 (10th Dist.). And the propriety of raising res judicata sua sponte is questionable. The Ohio Supreme Court has held a court of appeals “improperly ruled on the question of res judicata, because the trial court did not decide that question in a final, appealable order.” Lycan v. City of Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-422, ¶ 22. We generally refrain from raising issues sua sponte because, as a court of appeals, “‘we preside as arbiters of the legal questions presented and argued by the parties.’” Kelley v. Horton, 2025-Ohio- 5252, ¶ 24 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 19. And res judicata often involves a review of evidence outside of the record. See Hillman at ¶ 14. Consistent with that notion, federal courts may, sua sponte, raise the issue of res judicata in limited “special circumstances” so long as the court is “on notice that it has previously decided the issue presented” and resolving the issue of res judicata expends no judicial resources. Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412-413 (2000). Otherwise, a court sua sponte raising an issue “erod[es] the principle of party presentation so basic to our system of adjudication.” Id. at 413. All of this is to say, we do not consider whether J.D.’s request was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009). So, the order dismissing J.D.’s criminal charges marked

the end of the criminal proceedings, which included the competency proceedings.

{¶16} After J.D.’s criminal proceedings were terminated, R.C. 2945.38(H)(4)

instructed the trial court to discharge J.D. unless the court or State filed an affidavit in

the probate court to begin civil involuntary-commitment proceedings under R.C.

Chapter 5112 or 5123. In other words, the trial court’s R.C. 2945.38(H)(4) order

marked the end of J.D.’s criminal proceedings and the start of separate civil

involuntary-commitment proceedings. Indeed, R.C. 5122.11 states that “[p]roceedings

for a person with a mental illness subject to a court order . . . shall be commenced by

the filing of an affidavit.”

{¶17} After the court filed the R.C. 5122.11 affidavit, a probate court magistrate

issued a temporary detention order. Under R.C. 5122.11, the court that issues a

temporary detention order “retain[s] jurisdiction over the case.” A person subject to a

temporary detention order “may be observed and treated until” the court holds an

involuntary-commitment hearing governed by R.C. 5122.141. R.C. 5122.11. And under

R.C. 5122.141(B), the hearing to determine whether J.D. was “a person with a mental

illness subject to court order” must occur within five days of the affidavit being filed

or J.D.’s detention, “whichever occur[ed] first.” R.C. 5122.141(A) and (B). Here, the

affidavit and temporary detention order were filed on August 14, 2018, and the probate

court held the involuntary-commitment hearing on August 17, 2018–well within R.C.

5122.141(B)’s timeframe.

{¶18} Expungement under R.C. 5122.141(B) is mandatory only if the person is

discharged based on (1) the court’s failure to hold an involuntary-commitment hearing

within the statute’s five-day deadline, and (2) involuntary-commitment proceedings

are not reinstituted within 30 days. R.C. 5122.141(B). The probate court held a hearing

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

within the five-day period. Therefore, R.C. 5122.141(B)’s expungement provision does

not apply to J.D.’s records.

2. R.C. 2953.32(B)(1)(a)(i)

{¶19} J.D. argues that his involuntary-commitment records were eligible for

expungement under R.C. 2953.32(B)(1)(a)(i). That statute, however, provides “eligible

offenders” an opportunity to apply “for the sealing or expungement of the record of

the case that pertains to the conviction.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2953.32(B)(1). In

other words, R.C. 2953.32 governs the expungement of records of criminal

convictions, not civil case records. And J.D.’s involuntary-commitment case was civil

in nature. See In re Winstead, 67 Ohio App.2d 111, 116-117 (1980). J.D.’s involuntary-

commitment records were not eligible for expungement under R.C. 2953.32(B)(1).

{¶20} We acknowledge J.D.’s concerns that his involuntary-commitment

records affect his employment prospects. But we emphasize that J.D.’s involuntary-

commitment records are sealed from public view, and therefore, no prospective

employer would have access to his involuntary-commitment records.

{¶21} In sum, neither R.C. 5122.141 nor 2953.32 provided a mechanism for

expunging the records of J.D.’s involuntary-commitment case. The probate court

properly denied J.D.’s motion.

III. Conclusion

{¶22} We overrule J.D.’s assignment of error and affirm the probate court’s

judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

KINSLEY, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., concur.