[Cite as State v. R.T., 2026-Ohio-1282.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 115475 v. :
R.T., :
Defendant-Appellee. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 9, 2026
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-24-693198
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Tasha L. Forchione, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Graziani Law, LLC, and Mark F. Graziani, for appellee.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
The State appeals the trial court’s decision granting R.T.’s motion to
seal a federal conviction from 2003. The details of that conviction are not relevant
to this appeal. Following a hearing, the trial court issued a journal entry in which
it found that “it may seal the applicant’s federal conviction records maintained in Ohio by state officials or agencies, provided such records are not maintained or
utilized by those state officials or agencies pursuant to any federal law.” It was then
ordered that “all official records pertaining to this case shall be sealed” except
where federal or state law requires otherwise. In addition, the trial court directed
the clerk of courts to serve the order on various state and federal agencies.
The State filed this appeal, as a matter of right, claiming that the trial
court erred by issuing an order “that exceeds its statutory and constitutional
authority by purporting to seal all official records of a federal conviction and to
restrict the use of those records by federal and state agencies beyond what R.C.
2953.32 and controlling precedent permit.” According to the State, the trial court
has limited jurisdiction over sealing records of federal convictions. See State ex
rel. Gains v. Rossi, 86 Ohio St.3d 620, 623 (1999).
Although a state trial court cannot order or direct federal courts or
executive agencies to seal records of federal convictions, the trial court is
authorized under R.C. 2953.32 to seal any state-retained record of the federal
conviction and restore disabilities imposed under state law, provided that such
records are not used or maintained pursuant to federal law. Id. at 623, citing In re
Pacifico, 129 Ohio App.3d 152 (2d Dist. 1998); see also State v. Shirley M., 136 Ohio
App.3d 753 (8th Dist. 2000) (recognizing that a trial court does not err in sealing
state-maintained records of federal convictions when the State has failed to
demonstrate that the sealing of the records was for a purpose other than removing
a state-created disability). That authority is derived from R.C. 2953.32(B)(1), which provides in part: “[A]n eligible offender may apply . . . to a court of common pleas if
convicted in . . . a federal court, for the sealing or expungement of the record of the
case that pertains to the conviction.” Neither party challenges nor disagrees with
the proposition of law announced in Rossi interpreting R.C. 2953.32(B)(1).
Although the trial court’s judgment entry granting the petition to
seal the record recited the limitations under Rossi, the order sealing the state-
maintained record of R.T.’s federal conviction contains several boilerplate
directives that run afoul of the trial court’s limited authority and are contrary to the
recognized limitations established in Rossi: (1) ordering “all official records
pertaining to this case” to be sealed and the proceedings deemed to have not
occurred; and (2) ordering the clerk of courts to serve the trial court’s order on (a)
“the Bureau Of Criminal Investigation In The Office Of The Attorney General Of The
State of Ohio” (“BCI”), and (b) “the law enforcement official in charge of the law
enforcement agency or organization which caused the applicant’s arrest.” The
State challenges those mandates, claiming they exceed the trial court’s authority
because they impact federal agencies or seek to seal a federal conviction.
R.T. claims that the trial court has authority to seal the record of the
federal conviction and, because of that, seeks a decision affirming the trial court’s
order sealing his record of conviction. He has not addressed the jurisdictional
limitations or the language included in the trial court’s order sealing the record. This
argument is contrary to precedent from this district. In Shirley M., the panel noted that trial courts “must be mindful to
limit the scope of the expungement to those records maintained in the state of Ohio
by Ohio agencies, courts and officials” and “must determine whether the order of
expungement is being sought to remove a federally created disability and whether
the records maintained by the State are done so because of federal direction.” Id. at
757. An order seeking to remove a federally created disability or seal records
contrary to federal requirements is constitutionally impermissible. Id. Thus, in so
much as R.T. seeks to relieve himself of a federal firearm disability or to seal the
record of the federal conviction, that argument cannot be accepted. Id.
The boilerplate directives noted above appear to be generally geared
to sealing state convictions. The order granting R.T.’s petition to seal the record,
for example, included language directing the clerk of court to serve the order on
the agencies involved in arresting R.T. for a federal crime. In light of the limited
record, it is not clear what agency was involved in R.T.’s 2003 arrest — although at
oral argument the State confirmed the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
involvement in R.T.’s arrest. The purpose of such a directive could impermissibly
compel the federal agency to comply with the sealing order. Further, R.T. has not
demonstrated, let alone argued, that BCI can disregard the federal conviction for
the purpose of performing background checks as required under federal law. See,
e.g., In re Sealing of Records of Conviction of K.T., 2021-Ohio-228, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.)
(trial court could not order BCI to ignore a federal conviction record when
performing a criminal records check). More specificity is needed in this thorny niche carved out by the Ohio
Supreme Court in Rossi, 86 Ohio St.3d 620, but the parties have not provided a road
map for that in this record. For example, R.T. includes a discussion regarding his
hazardous trucking licensing and his state firearm disabilities as being impacted by
the federal conviction, but the removal of the latter disability falls under a different
statutory section altogether — see R.C. 2923.14 (removal of state firearm disability).
Because any issues related to relieving R.T. of a state firearm disability are not
relevant to the question of sealing the federal records of conviction R.T. sought in
this case, there is no need to discuss or interpret 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20), which
establishes that any conviction that is expunged is not considered a conviction for
the purposes of a federal firearm disability. Under settled Ohio law, a state court
cannot expunge or seal a federal conviction. But regardless, should R.T. desire relief
from a state firearm disability, that proceeding would need to be initiated through a
different statutory mechanism as provided under R.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. R.T., 2026-Ohio-1282.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 115475 v. :
R.T., :
Defendant-Appellee. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 9, 2026
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-24-693198
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Tasha L. Forchione, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Graziani Law, LLC, and Mark F. Graziani, for appellee.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
The State appeals the trial court’s decision granting R.T.’s motion to
seal a federal conviction from 2003. The details of that conviction are not relevant
to this appeal. Following a hearing, the trial court issued a journal entry in which
it found that “it may seal the applicant’s federal conviction records maintained in Ohio by state officials or agencies, provided such records are not maintained or
utilized by those state officials or agencies pursuant to any federal law.” It was then
ordered that “all official records pertaining to this case shall be sealed” except
where federal or state law requires otherwise. In addition, the trial court directed
the clerk of courts to serve the order on various state and federal agencies.
The State filed this appeal, as a matter of right, claiming that the trial
court erred by issuing an order “that exceeds its statutory and constitutional
authority by purporting to seal all official records of a federal conviction and to
restrict the use of those records by federal and state agencies beyond what R.C.
2953.32 and controlling precedent permit.” According to the State, the trial court
has limited jurisdiction over sealing records of federal convictions. See State ex
rel. Gains v. Rossi, 86 Ohio St.3d 620, 623 (1999).
Although a state trial court cannot order or direct federal courts or
executive agencies to seal records of federal convictions, the trial court is
authorized under R.C. 2953.32 to seal any state-retained record of the federal
conviction and restore disabilities imposed under state law, provided that such
records are not used or maintained pursuant to federal law. Id. at 623, citing In re
Pacifico, 129 Ohio App.3d 152 (2d Dist. 1998); see also State v. Shirley M., 136 Ohio
App.3d 753 (8th Dist. 2000) (recognizing that a trial court does not err in sealing
state-maintained records of federal convictions when the State has failed to
demonstrate that the sealing of the records was for a purpose other than removing
a state-created disability). That authority is derived from R.C. 2953.32(B)(1), which provides in part: “[A]n eligible offender may apply . . . to a court of common pleas if
convicted in . . . a federal court, for the sealing or expungement of the record of the
case that pertains to the conviction.” Neither party challenges nor disagrees with
the proposition of law announced in Rossi interpreting R.C. 2953.32(B)(1).
Although the trial court’s judgment entry granting the petition to
seal the record recited the limitations under Rossi, the order sealing the state-
maintained record of R.T.’s federal conviction contains several boilerplate
directives that run afoul of the trial court’s limited authority and are contrary to the
recognized limitations established in Rossi: (1) ordering “all official records
pertaining to this case” to be sealed and the proceedings deemed to have not
occurred; and (2) ordering the clerk of courts to serve the trial court’s order on (a)
“the Bureau Of Criminal Investigation In The Office Of The Attorney General Of The
State of Ohio” (“BCI”), and (b) “the law enforcement official in charge of the law
enforcement agency or organization which caused the applicant’s arrest.” The
State challenges those mandates, claiming they exceed the trial court’s authority
because they impact federal agencies or seek to seal a federal conviction.
R.T. claims that the trial court has authority to seal the record of the
federal conviction and, because of that, seeks a decision affirming the trial court’s
order sealing his record of conviction. He has not addressed the jurisdictional
limitations or the language included in the trial court’s order sealing the record. This
argument is contrary to precedent from this district. In Shirley M., the panel noted that trial courts “must be mindful to
limit the scope of the expungement to those records maintained in the state of Ohio
by Ohio agencies, courts and officials” and “must determine whether the order of
expungement is being sought to remove a federally created disability and whether
the records maintained by the State are done so because of federal direction.” Id. at
757. An order seeking to remove a federally created disability or seal records
contrary to federal requirements is constitutionally impermissible. Id. Thus, in so
much as R.T. seeks to relieve himself of a federal firearm disability or to seal the
record of the federal conviction, that argument cannot be accepted. Id.
The boilerplate directives noted above appear to be generally geared
to sealing state convictions. The order granting R.T.’s petition to seal the record,
for example, included language directing the clerk of court to serve the order on
the agencies involved in arresting R.T. for a federal crime. In light of the limited
record, it is not clear what agency was involved in R.T.’s 2003 arrest — although at
oral argument the State confirmed the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
involvement in R.T.’s arrest. The purpose of such a directive could impermissibly
compel the federal agency to comply with the sealing order. Further, R.T. has not
demonstrated, let alone argued, that BCI can disregard the federal conviction for
the purpose of performing background checks as required under federal law. See,
e.g., In re Sealing of Records of Conviction of K.T., 2021-Ohio-228, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.)
(trial court could not order BCI to ignore a federal conviction record when
performing a criminal records check). More specificity is needed in this thorny niche carved out by the Ohio
Supreme Court in Rossi, 86 Ohio St.3d 620, but the parties have not provided a road
map for that in this record. For example, R.T. includes a discussion regarding his
hazardous trucking licensing and his state firearm disabilities as being impacted by
the federal conviction, but the removal of the latter disability falls under a different
statutory section altogether — see R.C. 2923.14 (removal of state firearm disability).
Because any issues related to relieving R.T. of a state firearm disability are not
relevant to the question of sealing the federal records of conviction R.T. sought in
this case, there is no need to discuss or interpret 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20), which
establishes that any conviction that is expunged is not considered a conviction for
the purposes of a federal firearm disability. Under settled Ohio law, a state court
cannot expunge or seal a federal conviction. But regardless, should R.T. desire relief
from a state firearm disability, that proceeding would need to be initiated through a
different statutory mechanism as provided under R.C. 2923.14, not through seeking
to seal or expunge records of federal convictions under R.C. 2953.32. See Rivera v.
Petition for Relief from Firearm Disability, 2025-Ohio-2225, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.); State
v. Heffley, 2024-Ohio-2218 (3d Dist.) (expunging the state conviction restores an
offender’s firearm rights under Ohio law, thus negating the federal disability).
On remand, a hearing is necessary to determine the scope of what is
to be sealed in order to ensure compliance with the jurisdictional limitations.
Shirley M., 136 Ohio App.3d at 757. The burden falls on R.T., as the person seeking
relief, to assert with specificity what records are being sealed. Id. (“When presented with a motion to seal the record of a federal conviction, one must be mindful to limit
the scope of the expungement to those records maintained in the state of Ohio by
Ohio agencies, courts and officials,” and a trial court exceeds its limited authority by
inappropriately extending a state order to seal records to control a federal
organization.); see also State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 19 (concluding
that it is not the court’s responsibility to craft arguments or consider issues of its
own accord); see also State v. S.D.F., 2025-Ohio-1832, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.) (noting the
applicant’s burden to demonstrate the basis for expungement or the sealing of a
record of conviction under R.C. 2953.32). Simply seeking the sealing of all records
of a federal conviction based on a generic request to seal a record of a federal
conviction is overly broad. Shirley M. at 757. Any order sealing the state records of
a federal conviction, at a minimum, needs to be narrowly tailored to that task. Id.
The burden initially rests with the petitioner to specify the scope of what is being
requested, and simply seeking the sealing of all state records is insufficient. And
although R.T. bemoans the lack of any ability to expunge his federal conviction
because, according to him, no such remedy exists, creating federal remedies is not
in the purview of a state court.
Because the framework has not been provided by the parties in this
record, we cannot render a decision as to the scope of what is permissibly sealed
under the prevailing authority in the first instance. Accordingly, the final entry
ordering the sealing of the records is reversed and vacated, and this matter is
remanded for further proceedings. It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule
27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________ SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, P.J., and TIMOTHY W. CLARY, J., CONCUR