The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that an offender convicted of a fourth- or fifth-degree felony must fully pay court-ordered restitution to be eligible to apply for sealing their criminal record. The decision reversed the Tenth District Court of Appeals' judgment, which had allowed T.W.C. to seal his forgery convictions despite unpaid restitution.

Justice Joseph T. Deters authored the unanimous opinion for the Court, which ruled that restitution, even when labeled as a civil judgment, remains a criminal sanction that must be fully paid before an offender can apply to have their criminal record sealed. The ruling clarifies the legal requirements for achieving "final discharge" under Ohio law.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion. Eighth District Court of Appeals Judge Michael J. Ryan, sitting for Justice Jennifer Brunner, also joined the opinion.

Restitution as a Criminal Sanction
The Court emphasized that restitution is a criminal sanction under Ohio law, regardless of how it is labeled in a sentencing entry. Justice Deters wrote that restitution is part of the "attendant criminal sanctions" that must be satisfied before an offender can achieve final discharge and apply for record sealing. The Court rejected the argument that labeling restitution as a civil judgment removes it from the sentencing requirements.

The opinion cited prior case law, including State v. Aguirre (2014), which held that "final discharge" does not occur until all sentencing requirements, including restitution, are satisfied. Justice Deters reiterated that the General Assembly has made it clear that courts must refuse to seal records when an offender is not eligible, stating, "No discretionary consideration can justify granting an application to seal before the offender has established eligibility to apply."

Dormancy Laws Do Not Apply
The Tenth District had ruled that the restitution order in this case had become dormant under debtor-protection laws, as it had not been revived within the statutory time frame. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, clarifying that restitution in criminal cases is not subject to dormancy laws. Justice Deters explained that Ohio law does not impose a time limit for the payment of restitution, and the obligation remains enforceable indefinitely.

The Court also noted that the trial court's labeling of restitution as a "civil judgment" was likely an acknowledgment that the victim could collect the restitution through civil enforcement mechanisms, but this did not change its nature as a criminal sanction.

Legislative Authority on Sealing Records
Justice Deters underscored that the authority to modify the requirements for sealing criminal records lies with the General Assembly, not the courts. The Court stated, "To the extent that public policy might support the sealing of a criminal record before the offender pays all court-ordered restitution, implementation of that policy must occur at the legislative branch."

The Court concluded that the offender in this case, T.W.C., is not eligible to apply for record sealing until the restitution is fully paid. The case was remanded to the Tenth District Court of Appeals to address constitutional arguments raised by T.W.C.

2024-0265. State v. T.W.C., Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2890.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.