State v. R.T.

[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