“No Discharge Without Restitution” – The Supreme Court of Ohio Clarifies that Restitution Remains a Criminal Sanction for Record-Sealing Purposes (State v. T.W.C., 2025-Ohio-2890)

1. Introduction

State v. T.W.C. presented the Supreme Court of Ohio with a deceptively simple but practically significant question: Does labeling a restitution order “as a civil judgment” in a criminal sentencing entry remove the obligation from the universe of criminal sanctions that must be satisfied before an offender can seek to seal (i.e., expunge) the record of conviction under R.C. 2953.32?

The appellee, T.W.C., had pleaded guilty in 2004 to two fifth-degree forgery felonies for depositing counterfeit checks and withdrawing funds. Along with concurrent prison terms, the trial court imposed restitution of $2,663 in favor of Mid-State Credit Union and expressly declared the amount “entered as a civil judgment.” Nearly two decades later, unable to pay the restitution, T.W.C. asked to seal his record. The trial court granted the request and the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that by calling the obligation a “civil judgment,” the trial court had converted the restitution into a purely civil debt subject to dormancy rules, thereby removing it from the list of sentencing requirements.

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Deters, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed. The Court held that restitution ordered in a criminal sentencing entry remains part of the criminal sentence—regardless of the label attached to it—and must be fully paid before the offender attains the “final discharge” necessary to apply for record sealing.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court reiterated that a defendant convicted of a fourth- or fifth-degree felony may seek to seal the conviction one year after “final discharge” (former R.C. 2953.32(A)(1)(b)).
“Final discharge” occurs only after the offender satisfies all components of the criminal sentence, including all “attendant criminal sanctions.”
Restitution is expressly defined as a criminal sanction within R.C. 2929.01 and 2929.18; the trial court’s choice to couch it “as a civil judgment” does not transmogrify its character.
Because restitution remained unpaid, T.W.C. had never achieved final discharge and was ineligible to seek sealing.
The court of appeals’ reliance on civil dormancy statutes was mistaken because those statutes do not extinguish a criminal restitution obligation.
The Court remanded for the Tenth District to address constitutional arguments that were left unresolved.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

State v. Aguirre, 2014-Ohio-4603 – Established that “final discharge” requires satisfaction of all sentencing requirements, specifically including restitution.
State v. P.J.F., 2022-Ohio-4152 – Clarified that “discharge” is from the conviction and all “attendant criminal sanctions,” again using restitution as the paradigm.
Statutory Authorities – R.C. 2929.01(DD) & (EE) define “sanction” and “sentence”; – R.C. 2929.18 governs restitution and its collection mechanisms; – R.C. 2953.32 sets forth eligibility for sealing.

These precedents formed the backbone of the Court’s reasoning. By reaffirming Aguirre and P.J.F., the Court underscored continuity rather than novelty: restitution occupies an unshakable place within the sentencing framework.

3.2 Legal Reasoning in Depth

Statutory Text Controls R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) makes clear that restitution is imposed “in addition to and independent of any other financial sanctions” and is “part of the sentence.” The Court emphasized that a trial court cannot, by verbal sleight of hand, transform a statutory criminal sanction into a purely civil debt.
Definition of “Sanction” R.C. 2929.01(DD) defines “sanction” to include felony restitution. As the Court noted, labeling a portion of the sentence does not alter its statutory definition.
Collection Mechanisms vs. Nature of the Obligation R.C. 2929.18(D) allows a victim to pursue restitution through civil collection devices—a certificate of judgment, execution, or attachment. The availability of civil collection remedies does not re-classify restitution as an optional civil obligation; it merely provides enforcement tools.
Dormancy Statutes Inapplicable Dormancy affects execution on civil judgments after periods of inaction. Restitution, however, is timeless until paid; no statutory sunset is found in R.C. 2929.18. Therefore, the Tenth District’s dormancy analysis was irrelevant.
Separation of Powers & “Act of Grace” Doctrine The Court reiterated that sealing is an act of legislative grace. Trial courts have discretion only once statutory eligibility is met; they may not bypass eligibility thresholds. Any policy change must come from the General Assembly, not judicial re-labeling.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Decision

Uniformity Across Trial Courts Sentencing courts can no longer attempt to expedite future sealing by styling restitution as a civil judgment. Judges must treat restitution consistently as a criminal sanction unless and until the legislature dictates otherwise.
Guidance for Practitioners Defense counsel must advise clients that unpaid restitution forever bars sealing, absent legislative change or satisfaction of the debt. Prosecutors can confidently object to sealing applications on this ground.
Victims’ Rights Strengthened Victims retain leverage because their restitution cannot be extinguished through inaction. The judgment validates the collection tools of R.C. 2929.18(D).
Impact on Re-entry Policy Debates The case may invigorate legislative proposals to decouple financial sanctions from sealing eligibility, echoing debates seen in other jurisdictions. Until then, Ohio’s courts are bound by this bright-line rule.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Restitution vs. Civil Judgment: Restitution is money a criminal court orders the offender to pay to the victim to make the victim whole. Though victims can collect it like any civil judgment, its origin is criminal. Think of it as a criminal obligation with civil collection tools.
Final Discharge: A milestone indicating that all pieces of the sentence—incarceration, supervision, fines, court costs, restitution—are completed. Only after final discharge does the one-year clock for applying to seal one’s record begin.
Dormancy of Judgments: Under civil law, if a money judgment isn’t enforced within five years, it becomes “dormant” and unenforceable unless revived. The Supreme Court clarified that this civil concept does not erase criminal restitution obligations.
Sealing (Expungement) in Ohio: Sealing removes the record from public view but does not destroy it. Eligibility hinges on statute, not equitable pleas. It is an “act of grace” from the legislature, administered by courts.

5. Conclusion

State v. T.W.C. cements a clean, administrable rule: restitution must be paid in full before an offender is statutorily eligible to seal a conviction, even if a sentencing entry describes the restitution “as a civil judgment.” The decision harmonizes statutory text, prior case law, and separation-of-powers principles, while providing clarity to judges, lawyers, and litigants. Its immediate consequence is to safeguard victims’ financial interests and to foreclose creative judicial drafting aimed at circumventing the legislature’s conditions for record sealing. Any reform that would permit sealing in the face of unpaid restitution must now come from the Ohio General Assembly, not the courts.