State v. Mevorah

2012 Ohio 4671

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 8, 2012
• Docket: 2012-CAC-030021
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Mevorah, 2012-Ohio-4671.]

COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUDGES: STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. : -vs- : : Case No. 2012-CAC-030021 STANLEY MEVORAH : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Delaware MunicipalCourt, Case No. 08CRB01105

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 8, 2012

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

JOSEPH SCHMANSKY NICHOLAS SINIFF Delaware County Prosecutor Yavitch & Palmer Co., L.P.A. 70 North Union Street 511 South High Street Delaware, OH 43015 Columbus, OH 43215 [Cite as State v. Mevorah, 2012-Ohio-4671.]

Gwin, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant Stanley Mevorah appeals a judgment of the Municipal Court of

Delaware County, Ohio, which denied his application to seal the record of his criminal

conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.31. Appellant assigns a single error to the trial court:

{¶2} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S

APPLICATION TO SEAL THE RECORD OF HIS MINOR MISDEMEANOR

DISORDERLY CONDUCT CONVICTION WHEN APPELLANT WAS A ‘FIRST

OFFENDER’ AS DEFINED UNDER R.C. 2953.31 (A).”

{¶3} The record indicates appellant was convicted of OVI in violation of R.C.

4511.19(A) in 2007, and convicted of the minor misdemeanor offense of disorderly

conduct in May 2008. On November 2009, appellant applied to seal the record of the

minor misdemeanor conviction, but the court denied the requested relief because it

found appellant did not qualify as a first offender as defined by the statute. Appellant

does not seek to seal the record of the OVI conviction, but only the minor misdemeanor.

{¶4} R.C. 2953.31 (A) defines the term first offender. It provides in pertinent

part:

“First offender” means anyone who has been convicted of an offense in

this state or any other jurisdiction and who previously or subsequently has

not been convicted of the same or a different offense in this state or any

other jurisdiction. * * *

For purposes of, and except as otherwise provided in, this division, a

conviction for a minor misdemeanor, for a violation of any section in

Chapter 4507., 4510., 4511., 4513., or 4549. of the Revised Code, or for a Delaware County, Case No. 2012-CAC-030021 3

violation of a municipal ordinance that is substantially similar to any

section in those chapters is not a previous or subsequent conviction.

However, a conviction for a violation of section 4511.19, * * * shall be

considered a previous or subsequent conviction.

{¶5} Pursuant to the statutory definition, appellant’s OVI conviction must be

considered a previous conviction. Thus, even though the subsequent offense is a minor

misdemeanor, appellant cannot be considered a first offender.

{¶6} The assignment of error is overruled.

{¶7} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Municipal Court of

Delaware County, Ohio, is affirmed.

By Gwin, P. J.,

Hoffman, J., and

Farmer, J., concur

_________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN

_________________________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN

_________________________________ HON. SHEILA G. FARMER

WSG:clw 0907 [Cite as State v. Mevorah, 2012-Ohio-4671.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : STANLEY MEVORAH : : : Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 2012-CAC-030021

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of

the Municipal Court of Delaware County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to appellant.