In re Sexual-Offender Reclassification Cases

126 Ohio St. 3d 322

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Decided: August 17, 2010
• Status: Published

Opinion

{¶ 1} The following dispositions of currently pending appeals and certified conflicts are hereby entered based on our decision in State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753.

Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

I

{¶ 2} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are affirmed, because the courts of appeals held the Adam Walsh Act to be unconstitutional expressly on separation-of-powers grounds.

{¶ 3} 2009-1213. Spangler v. State, Lake App. No. 2008-L-062, 2009-Ohio-3178, 2009 WL 1856784. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 4} 2009-1498. McCostlin v. State, Lake App. No. 2008-L-117, 2009-Ohio-4097, 2009 WL 2488039. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 5} 2009-1582. State v. Garner, Lake App. No. 2008-L-087, 2009-Ohio-4448, 2009 WL 2710111.

II

{¶ 6} The certified questions in the following cases are answered in the affirmative, and the judgments of the courts of appeals are affirmed, because the courts of appeals held the Adam Walsh Act to be unconstitutional expressly on separation-of-powers grounds.

{¶ 7} 2009-1682 and 2009-2026. Naples v. State, Trumbull App. No. 2008-T-0092, 2009-Ohio-3938, 2009 WL 2425981.

{¶ 8} 2009-1827 and 2009-2027. State v. Grate, Trumbull App. No. 2008-T-0058, 2009-Ohio-4452, 2009 WL 2710100.

III

{¶ 9} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are affirmed in judgment only, because the courts of appeals held the Adam Walsh Act to be unconstitutional on rationales other than the separation-of-powers doctrine.

{¶ 10} 2009-1290. State v. Ettenger, Lake App. No. 2008-L-054, 2009-Ohio-3525, 2009 WL 2136928. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 11} 2009-1798. Thomas v. State, Lake App. No. 2008-L-026, 2009-Ohio-5209, 2009 WL 3154904. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 12} 2009-1799. State v. Bache, Lake App. No. 2008-L-061, 2009-Ohio-5211, 2009 WL 3154901.

IY

{¶ 13} The first certified question in the following case is answered in the affirmative and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed in judgment only. The court declines to answer the remaining certified questions.

{¶ 14} 2009-2030 and 2009-2325. Pollis v. State, Trumbull App. No. 2008-T-0055, 2009-Ohio-5058, 2009 WL 3068997.

V

{¶ 15} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are reversed as to those portions of the judgments that rejected constitutional challenges to the Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for further proceedings, if any, necessitated by State v. Bodyke.

{¶ 16} 2009-0236. State v. Netherland, Ross App. No. 08CA3043, 2008-Ohio-7007, 2008 WL 5451339.

{¶ 17} 2009-0355. State v. Randlett, Ross App. No. 08CA3046, 2009-Ohio-112, 2009 WL 81325.

{¶ 18} 2009-0427. State v. Ellis, Cuyahoga App. No. 90844, 2008-Ohio-6283, 2008 WL 5096923.

{¶ 19} 2009-0451. State v. Brown, Cuyahoga App. No. 90798, 2009-Ohio-127, 2009 WL 94757.

{¶ 20} 2009-0488. State v. Sewell, Ross App. No. 08CA3042, 2009-Ohio-594, 2009 WL 343217.

{¶ 21} 2009-0806. Engels v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-080725.

{¶ 22} 2009-1002. Brooks v. State, Lorain App. No. 08CA009452, 2009-Ohio-1825, 2009 WL 1035071.

{¶ 23} 2009-1010. Moran v. State, Clermont App. No. CA2008-05-057, 2009-Ohio-1840, 2009 WL 1040086.

{¶ 24} 2009-1014. West v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-080612.

{¶ 25} 2009-1032. Foster v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-080651.

{¶ 26} 2009-1058. Sigler v. State, Richland App. No. 08-CA-79, 2009-Ohio-2010, 2009 WL 1145232.

{¶27} 2009-1086. Gildersleeve v. State, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 91515, 91516, 91517, 91518, 91519, 91521, 91522, 91523,91524, 91525, 91526, 91527, 91528, 91529, 91530, 91531, and 91532, 2009-Ohio-2031, 2009 WL 1156799.

{¶ 28} 2009-1433. Culgan v. State, Richland App. No. 08-CA-217, 2009-Ohio-3570, 2009 WL 2170989.

{¶ 29} 2009-1467. State v. Maggy, Trumbull App. No. 2008-T-0078, 2009-Ohio-3180, 2009 WL 1857292. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 30} 2009-1483. Biggs v. State, Richland App. No. 08-CA-224, 2009-Ohio-3404, 2009 WL 2005228.

{¶ 31} 2009-1545. Webster v. State, Richland App. No. 2008 CA 0163, 2009-Ohio-3568, 2009 WL 2170994.

{¶ 32} 2009-1550. Welker v. State, Richland App. No. 08-CA-262, 2009-Ohio-3632, 2009 WL 2196861.

{¶ 33} 2009-1554. Harrison v. State, Cuyahoga App. No. 92095, 2009-Ohio-3467, 2009 WL 2054022.

{¶ 34} 2009-1580. State v. Hitchcock, Lake App. No. 2008-L-032, 2009-Ohio-4447, 2009 WL 2710126.

{¶ 35} 2009-1581. Sears v. State, Clermont App. No. CA2008-07-068, 2009-Ohio-3541, 2009 WL 2140032.

{¶ 36} 2009-1585. Dunbar v. State, Richland App. No. 2008CA0173, 2009-Ohio-3838, 2009 WL 2391981.

{¶ 37} 2009-1622. State v. Aleshire, Ross App. No. 09CA3093, 2009-Ohio-3921, 2009 WL 2415395.

{¶ 38} 2009-1628. In re J.M., Cuyahoga App. No. 91800, 2009-Ohio-2880, 2009 WL 1710760.

{¶ 39} 2009-1657. State v. Curd, Lake App. No. 2008-L-048, 2009-Ohio-3814, 2009 WL 2356874. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 40} 2009-1668. Elko v. State, Richland App. No. 2008CA0220, 2009-Ohio-4557, 2009 WL 2850207.

{¶ 41} 2009-1691. State v. Vernon, Lake App. No. 2008-L-066, 2009-Ohio-3937, 2009 WL 2426138. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 42} 2009-1699. Ahmed v. State, Richland App. No. 2008 CA 0165, 2009-Ohio-3989, 2009 WL 2486910.

{¶ 43} 2009-1700. Douse v. State, Richland App. No. 2008 CA 324, 2009-Ohio-3997, 2009 WL 2457032.

{¶ 44} 2009-1725. Mundt v. State, Richland App. No. 2008CA0263, 2009-Ohio-4056, 2009 WL 2486936.

{¶ 45} 2009-1737. Taylor v. State, Richland App. No. 2008CA0161, 2009-Ohio-4141, 2009 WL 2513666.

{¶ 46} 2009-1738. Ball v. State, Lake App. No. 2008-L-053, 2009-Ohio-4099, 2009 WL 2488042. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 47} 2009-1797. Bertram v. State, Lake App. No. 2008-L-037, 2009-Ohio-5210, 2009 WL 3154902.

{¶ 48} 2009-1845. State v. Kasunick, Lake App. No. 2008-L-056, 2009-Ohio-

4449, 2009 WL 2710107. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 49} 2009-1856. State v. Petralia, Lake App. No. 2008-L-095, 2009-Ohio-

4450, 2009 WL 2710211. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 50} 2009-1864. McKinney v. State, Warren App. No. CA2009-04-041, 2009-Ohio-4685, 2009 WL 2873768.

{¶ 51} 2009-1887. Searles v. State, Warren App. No. CA2009-05-055, 2009-Ohio-4666, 2009 WL 2872853.

{¶ 52} 2009-2108. Burbrink v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081075.

{¶ 53} 2009-2113. Lohman v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-080957.

(¶ 54} 2009-2114. Johnson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-080997.

{¶ 55} 2009-2135. State v. Bundy, Montgomery App. Nos. 23063 and 23064, 2009-Ohio-5395, 2009 WL 3246844.

{¶ 56} 2009-2163. Roy v. State, Butler App. No. CA2009-02-067, 2009-Ohio-5808, 2009 WL 3634097.

{¶ 57} 2009-2221. Cramer v. State, Warren App. No. CA2009-06-080.

{¶ 58} 2010-0027. In re D.P., Lake App. No. 2008-L-186, 2009-0hio-6149, 2009 WL 4021187. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 59} 2010-0029. In re R.J.G., Lake App. No. 2008-L-187, 2009-Ohio-6150, 2009 WL 4021190. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 60} 2010-0096. Gentry v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081311.

{¶ 61} 2010-0097. Dunn v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081310.

{¶ 62} 2010-0098. Hill v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081289.

{¶ 63} 2010-0100. Robinson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090002.

{¶ 64} 2010-0101. Moore v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081290.

{¶ 65} 2010-0102. Scheuermann v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081291.

{¶ 66} 2010-0103. Springer v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081305.

{¶ 67} 2010-0104. Stafford v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081270.

{¶ 68} 2010-0105. Gibson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081269.

{¶ 69} 2010-0106. Ajamu v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081271.

{¶ 70} 2010-0195. Janson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090039.

{¶ 71} 2010-0196. Hall v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090021.

{¶ 72} 2010-0197. Ellison v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090017.

{¶ 73} 2010-0199. Santoro v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090022.

{¶ 74} 2010-0200. Cody v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090010.

{¶ 75} 2010-0201. Short v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090016.

{¶ 76} 2010-0202. Zieger v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090023.

{¶ 77} 2010-0203. Nero v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090024.

{¶ 78} 2010-0204. Jones v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090045.

{¶ 79} 2010-0205. Fairbanks v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090005.

{¶ 80} 2010-0206. Claxton v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090004.

{¶ 81} 2010-0207. Jackson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081306.

{¶ 82} 2010-0256. In re McClurg, Hamilton App. No. C-081233.

{¶ 83} 2010-0262. James v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090129.

{¶ 84} 2001-0263. Tillman v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-081276.

{¶ 85} 2010-0264. Faulkner v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090130.

{¶ 86} 2010-0265. Turner v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090105.

{¶ 87} 2010-0274. State v. Rice, Lake App. No. 2008-L-105, 2009-Ohio-6999, 2009 WL 5176603. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 88} 2010-0285. Adamson v. State, Lake App. No. 2008-L-045, 2009-Ohio-6996, 2009 WL 5176600. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 89} 2010-0291. Hungerford v. State, Lake App. No. 2008-L-073, 2009-Ohio-6997, 2009 WL 5176601. O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., not participating.

VI

{¶ 90} The certified question in the following case is answered in the affirmative, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as to that portion of the judgment that rejected the constitutional challenge to the Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, if any, necessitated by State v. Bodyke.

{¶ 91} 2009-1525 and 2009-1832. Smallwood v. State, Butler App. No. CA2009-02-057, 2009-Ohio-3682, 2009 WL 2232194.

VII

{¶ 92} The first certified question in the following case is answered in the affirmative, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as to that portion of the judgment that rejected the constitutional challenge to the Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, if any, necessitated by State v. Bodyke. The court declines to answer the remaining certified questions.

{¶ 93} 2009-2078 and 2010-0023. State v. Russell, Trumbull App. No.2008-T-0074, 2009-Ohio-5213, 2009 WL 3154898.

VIII

{¶ 94} The discretionary appeals are accepted in the following cases on the proposition of law noted, the judgments of the courts of appeals are reversed as to those portions of the judgments that rejected constitutional challenges to the Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for further proceedings, if any, necessitated by State v. Bodyke.

{¶ 95} 2010-0404. Miller v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090131. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 96} 2010-0405. Masterson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090175. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 97} 2010-0406. Brannon v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090141. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 98} 2010-0407. James v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090176. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 99} 2010-0410. Bender v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090188. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 100} 2010-0411. Pickett v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090212. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 101} 2010-0412. Thompson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090106. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 102} 2010-0413. Fleming v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090107. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 103} 2010-0417. Averill v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090058. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 104} 2010-0418. Bodon v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090266. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 105} 2010-0419. Weatherspoon v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090142. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 106} 2010-0420. Harris v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090052. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 107} 2010-0424. Brozell v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090187. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 108} 2010-0477. Howell v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090003. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 109} 2010-0478. White v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090177. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 110} 2010-0549. State v. Hutchinson, Stark App. No. 2009CA00174, 2010-Ohio-537, 2010 WL 561250. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 111} 2010-0565. In re Rodney C., Licking App. No. 09 CA 71, 2010-Ohio-646, 2010 WL 636730. Proposition of Law No. IV.

{¶ 112} 2010-0589. Thomas v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090267. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 113} 2010-0613. State v. Zerla, Jefferson App. No. 08 JE 8, 2010-Ohio-749, 2010 WL 708998. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 114} 2010-0629. Beck v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090213, 2010-Ohio-669, 2010 WL 682514. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 115} 2010-0715. Russ v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090046. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 116} 2010-0716. Robinson v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090301. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 117} 2010-0758. Paster v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090322. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 118} 2010-0759. Collier v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090394. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 119} 2010-0760. Pelcha v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090474. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 120} 2010-0761. Valle v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090244. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 121} 2010-0762. Deaton v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090028. Proposition of Law No. III. moot. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as

{¶ 122} 2010-0763. Hatton v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090395. Proposition of Law No. III. moot. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as

{¶ 123} 2010-0767. Pfaehler v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090417. Proposition of Law No. III. moot. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as

{¶ 124} 2010-0820. Barnes v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090030. Proposition of Law No. III. moot. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as

{¶ 125} 2010-0821. Griffin v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090031. Proposition of Law No. III. moot. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as

{¶ 126} 2010-0822. Divo v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090396. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 127} 2010-0834. Smith v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090264. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 128} 2010-0842. Powell v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090469. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 129} 2010-0843. Martin v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090437. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

{¶ 130} 2010-0844. Frost v. State, Hamilton App. No. C-090486. Proposition of Law No. III. Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.

IX

{¶ 131} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are vacated, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for further proceedings consistent with State v. Bodyke.

{¶ 132} 2009-1423. State v. Ritchey, Franklin App. No. 08AP-923, 2009-Ohio-2988, 2009 WL 1803976.

{¶ 133} 2009-1623. State v. Gruszka, Lorain App. No. 08CA009515, 2009-Ohio-3926, 2009 WL 2424096.

{¶ 134} 2010-0148. State v. Downing, Franklin App. No. 09AP-420, 2009-Ohio-6482, 2009 WL 4698627.

X

{¶ 135} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are reversed as to those portions of the judgments that rejected constitutional challenges to the Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts to reinstate appellants’ original sex offender classifications and concomitant registration and reporting requirements. Appellants’ first Propositions of Law are rendered moot by State v. Bodyke.

{¶ 136} 2009-0446. State v. Messer, Ross App. No. 08CA3050, 2009-Ohio-312, 2009 WL 162058.

{¶ 137} 2009-0448. State v. Linville, Ross App. No. 08CA3051, 2009-Ohio-313, 2009 WL 162061.

{¶ 138} 2009-1342. State v. Case, Huron App. No. H-08-009, 2009-Ohio-2923, 2009 WL 1719357.

XI

{¶ 139} The judgment of the court of appeals in the following case is reversed as to that portion of the judgment that upheld appellant’s reclassification under the Adam Walsh Act, and the cause is remanded to the trial court to reinstate appellant’s original sex offender classification and concomitant registration and reporting requirements. Appellant’s Proposition of Law raising a right to counsel in a reclassification hearing is rendered moot by State v. Bodyke.

{¶ 140} 2010-0004. State v. Sprauer, Ross App. No. 09CA3121, 2009-Ohio-6698, 2009 WL 4893171.

XII

{¶ 141} The judgment of the court of appeals in the following case is affirmed in judgment only, because the court of appeals held the Adam Walsh Act to be unconstitutional on a rationale other than the separation-of-powers doctrine. The court does not reach appellant’s other claims because appellee will not be subject to reclassification.

{¶ 142} 2009-1860. State v. Strickland, Lake App. No. 2008-L-034, 2009-Ohio-5424, 2009 WL 3255305.

XIII

{¶ 143} The following case is remanded to the trial court consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

{¶ 144} 2010-0162. State v. Parks, Trumbull App. No. 2008-T-0119, 2009-Ohio-7001, 2009 WL 5176649.