[Cite as State v. Baston,
2021-Ohio-890.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO . CA2019-12-100
: OPINION
- vs - 3/22/2021
:
ROBERT PAUL BASTON, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
Case Nos. 2006CRB04412; 2006CRB04413; 2008CRB00587;
2008CRB02542; 2008CRB03751
Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecutor, Nick Horton, 76 S. Riverside Drive, Second
Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellee
Denise S. Barone, 385 North Street, Batavia, Ohio 45103-3005, for appellant
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Robert Paul Baston, appeals the decision of the Clermont County
Municipal Court denying his application to seal the record in Case No. 2006CRB04412, a
criminal matter originally charging Baston with a first-degree misdemeanor offense that was
subsequently dismissed by the municipal court on September 28, 2006. For the reasons
outlined below, we affirm the municipal court's decision.
Clermont CA2019-12-100
{¶ 2} On October 30, 2019, Baston filed an application to seal the record in the
above-referenced case, Case No. 2006CRB04412.1 Baston included with his application a
"waiver." In this waiver, Baston stated that he was "waiving his right" to be present at any
hearing the municipal court may have on his application to seal the record in that case since
he "is currently incarcerated out of state." Despite Baston's so-called "waiver," a hearing
on the matter was nevertheless scheduled before a municipal court magistrate for
November 21, 2019.
{¶ 3} Baston did not appear at the November 21, 2019 hearing. According to the
transcript of that hearing, which was presided over by Magistrate Christopher Bazley, this
was because Baston was "incarcerated in an Indiana prison." A search of the Indiana
Department of Correction offender data website, for which we can take judicial notice,2
shows that Baston was then, and is still, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Level 3 Facility in
Carlisle, Indiana serving a 40-year prison term for Class A felony child molesting.3 The
Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed Baston's conviction for that offense in Baston v. State,
Case No. 69A01-1008-CR-401, Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 704 (May 27, 2011).
{¶ 4} Shortly after the November 21, 2019 hearing concluded, the magistrate
issued a decision denying Baston's application to seal the record in Case No.
1. Baston filed four other applications to seal the record in Case Nos. 2006CRA04413, 2008CRB00587,
2008CRB02542, and 2008CRB03751. Baston's appellate brief, however, only argues against the municipal
court's decision denying his application to seal the record in Case No. 2006CRB4412. Therefore, because
Baston's appellate brief only raises an argument as it relates to the municipal court's decision in Case No.
2006CRB4412, this opinion will also be limited to that one case. But, even if this opinion was not so limited,
the outcome would nevertheless remain the same.
2. "This court has previously determined that we may take judicial notice of the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction's website to determine if a defendant is incarcerated and his or her date of
release." State v. Williams, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2018-01-012 and CA2018-01-013, 2018-Ohio-3989, ¶
12, fn.1. Indiana courts have determined the same. See, e.g., Sterling v. Zatecky, S.D.Ind. No. 1:16-cv-
03394-JRS-MJD,
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198453, *1, fn.1 (taking "judicial notice of the Indiana Department of
Correction offender location information available at its public website").
3. The results of a search of the Indiana Department of Corrections offender data website can be found here,
https://www.in.gov/apps/indcorrection/ofs/ofs?lname=baston&fname=robert&search1.x=54&search1.y=9
(last accessed Mar. 3, 2021).
-2-
Clermont CA2019-12-100
2006CRB04412. The magistrate's decision denying Baston's application stated that
Baston's petition was overruled because Baston "failed to appear" at that hearing.
{¶ 5} On December 2, 2019, Baston filed an objection to the magistrate's decision.
To support his objection, Baston initially stated:
Petitioner Robert P. Baston filed a[n] expungement of record
application on October 30, 2019 and with the expungement
application the Petitioner attached a waiver of appearance
waiving his right to be present at the expungement hearing since
Petitioner is currently living in the state of Indiana hundreds of
miles from Clermont County, Ohio. Petitioner felt that a
Judge/Magistrate could rule on the expungement application
without the presents (sic) of the Petitioner in court.
{¶ 6} Continuing, Baston then stated:
On November 21, 2019 @ 11:27 a.m. Magistrate Christopher
Bazley overruled Petitioner's expungement application for
failure to appear and did not acknowledge Petitioner's waiver of
appearance to be present in court. Therefore Petitioner prays
that the court reconsiders (sic) Petitioner's expungement
application to expunge and seal dismissed charges on his
record so Petitioner can benefit expungement for employment,
pardons, background-check errors, over-restrictive hiring rules
and more…
{¶ 7} Baston included with his objection another "waiver." In this waiver, just like in
his first, Baston stated that he was waiving his appearance since he is "currently living in
the state of Indiana."
{¶ 8} On January 8, 2020, the municipal court issued a decision denying Baston's
objection to the magistrate's decision. In so holding, the municipal court stated that it had
conducted an independent review of the record and determined that "[d]efendant must
appear in court so the Magistrate or a Judge can evaluate whether it is appropriate to grant
his request."
{¶ 9} Baston now appeals the municipal court's decision, raising the following single
assignment of error for review.
-3-
Clermont CA2019-12-100
{¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING
APPELLANT'S APPLICATION TO HAVE THE RECORD OF HIS DISMISSAL SEALED.
{¶ 11} Baston argues the municipal court abused its discretion by denying his
application to seal the record in Case No. 2006CRB04412. We disagree.
{¶ 12} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.52(A)(1), any person "who is the defendant named in
a dismissed complaint, indictment, or information, may apply to the court for an order to
seal the person's official records in the case." Upon the filing of such an application, "the
court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor in the case of the hearing
on the application." R.C. 2953.52(B)(1). The court, however, is not required to hold a
hearing when the applicant "'is not eligible as a matter of law and that ineligibility can be
established by proof or documentation included in the record.'" State v. L.F., 12th Dist.
Clermont No. CA2019-04-036, 2020-Ohio-420, ¶ 8, quoting State v. D.D.G., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 108291,
2019-Ohio-4982, ¶ 25; see, e.g., McBride v. Whitehall, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 13AP-658,
2013-Ohio-5718, ¶ 11 (hearing on application to seal a record is
not necessary if applicant's ineligibility can be determined on the record before the court).
This is because a hearing under such circumstances "simply would serve no purpose."
State v. Potts, 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos. 2019-T-0038 and 2019-T-0039,
2020-Ohio-989, ¶
15.
{¶ 13} In determining whether an applicant is eligible for record sealing under R.C.
2953.52, the court must determine (1) whether the "complaint, indictment, or information"
brought against the applicant was dismissed, and (2) whether criminal proceedings are
pending against the applicant. R.C. 2953.52(B)(2)(a) and (b). This determination is
reviewed de novo. State v. A.L.M., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 16AP-722, 2017-Ohio-2772, ¶
9, citing State v. Tauch, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-327,
2013-Ohio-5796, ¶ 7. "De novo
appellate review means that this court independently reviews the record and affords no
-4-
Clermont CA2019-12-100
deference to a trial court's decision." State v. Laghaoui, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2017-06-
098, 2018-Ohio-2261, ¶ 22, citing State v. Walker, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-810, 2007-
Ohio-4666, ¶ 10.
{¶ 14} If the court finds the applicant to be eligible for record sealing under R.C.
2953.52, the court must then use its discretion to (1) consider objections, if any, raised by
the prosecutor, and (2) weigh the interests of the applicant to seal the record against the
legitimate needs, if any, of the government to maintain those records. R.C. 2953.52(B)(2)(c)
and (d). An abuse of discretion standard is applied when reviewing a trial court's resolution
of these issues. State v. L.F., 2020-Ohio-420 at ¶ 10, citing State v. C.A., 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 14AP-738,
2015-Ohio-3437, ¶ 10; and In re Application for the Sealing of the Records
of A.R.H., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-554,
2019-Ohio-1325, ¶ 9. "An abuse of discretion
implies that the court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." State v.
Miller, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2019-11-010,
2021-Ohio-162, ¶ 29, citing State v. Widmer,
12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-02-008,
2013-Ohio-62, ¶ 170.
{¶ 15} Baston argues the municipal court abused its discretion by denying his
application to seal the record in Case No. 2006CRB04412 because "any reasonable
person" would have a "legitimate reason" to "expect" the application would have been
granted. However, even when ignoring the issue of whether Baston was even eligible to
have his record sealed given that he is currently serving a 40-year prison term in an Indiana
prison, a court is not required to grant an applicant's request to seal a record simply because
such a request was made. Rather, it is the applicant making the request "who bears the
burden to demonstrate the need for sealing the record." State ex rel. Podolsky v.
Wenninger, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2013-12-019, 2014-Ohio-3288, ¶ 31, citing State v.
Gross, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2010-03-030,
2011-Ohio-55, ¶ 5. This requires the
applicant to present evidence to demonstrate the applicant's interest in having the
-5-
Clermont CA2019-12-100
requested record sealed. State v. Hooks, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-522, 2016-Ohio-
3138, ¶ 14.
{¶ 16} Here, except for making a generalized claim that sealing the record could
benefit him for "employment, pardons, background-check errors, over-restrictive hiring rules
and more…," Baston provided the municipal court with no evidence to show why that record
should be sealed. That is to say, given the record properly before this court, Baston fell
well short of what was required of him to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate the need
for sealing the record in Case No. 2006CRB04412. See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 10th Dist.
Franklin Nos. 13AP-684 and 13AP-685, 2014-Ohio-1807, ¶ 17 (applicant failed to meet his
burden of proof requiring him to demonstrate the need for sealing a record where applicant
"did not appear at the hearing, or otherwise present any evidence to demonstrate his
interest in having the record of the no bill sealed"); State v. Herrick, 11th Dist. Geauga No.
2020-G-0252,
2020-Ohio-6917, ¶ 21 (applicant did not meet his burden of proof requiring
him to demonstrate the need for sealing a record where applicant "failed to identify any
particular negative economic, social, or legal consequences of maintaining the public
record" and "did not specifically identify how his privacy interests outweigh the public's right
to access the records").
{¶ 17} It is an abuse of discretion to grant an applicant's request to seal a record
when the applicant fails to provide information to support his or her interest in sealing a
record beyond asserting, without evidentiary support, that he or she qualifies for sealing
under the statute. See, e.g., State v. Draper, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-791, 2015-Ohio-
1781, ¶ 13 ("based on precedent, we find the trial court abused its discretion in granting
appellee's application to seal the records of her dismissed charges" where appellee failed
"to provide information supporting her interest in sealing her records beyond asserting,
without evidentiary support, that she qualifies for sealing under the statute"); see also State
-6-
Clermont CA2019-12-100
v. Porter, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-158, 2014-Ohio-4068, ¶ 13 ("[m]erely reciting the
statutory requirements is insufficient to satisfy an applicant's burden to establish [the
applicant's] interests in having [the applicant's] record sealed"). That is exactly what Baston
attempted to do here. Therefore, finding no error in the municipal court's decision denying
Baston's application to seal the record in Case No. 2006CRB04412, Baston's single
assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.
{¶ 18} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.
-7-
