State v. Hartman

2012 Ohio 153

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 19, 2012
• Docket: 91040
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Hartman, 2012-Ohio-153.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91040

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

MICHAEL HARTMAN

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-485377

BEFORE: Blackmon, A.J., Kilbane, P.J., and Celebrezze, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 19, 2012 2

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Robert A. Dixon The Brownhoist Building 4403 St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44103

Timothy J. Potts Standard Building, Suite 330 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

James D. May Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 3

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J.:

{¶ 1} This appeal is before this court on remand from the Ohio

Supreme Court for application of State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 461,

2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108. State v. Hartman, 130 Ohio St.3d 254,

2011-Ohio-5348, 957 N.E.2d 289.

{¶ 2} In State v. Hartman, 8th Dist. No. 91040, 2009-Ohio-1069, this

court affirmed Hartman’s convictions for importuning, compelling

prostitution, and public indecency. We also affirmed Hartman’s

classification as a Tier II offender under the Adam Walsh Act (“the AWA”).

The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review on propositions of law II and III.

{¶ 3} On direct appeal, Hartman argued in his third assigned error

that his classification under the Adam Walsh Act (“the AWA”) was

unconstitutional because it violated the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio

Constitution and the Ex Post Fact Clause of the United States Constitution.

{¶ 4} In Williams, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the AWA as

applied to “any other sex offender who committed an offense prior to the

enactment of S.B. 10, violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution,

which prohibits the General Assembly from enacting retroactive laws.” Id. at

¶ 22. S.B. 10, a.k.a AWA, was enacted on June 27, 2007, and made effective

on January 1, 2008. 4 {¶ 5} Here, the subject offenses took place on August 17, 2006, prior to

the enactment of the AWA. Consistent with the holding in Williams, we find

that Hartman’s classification under the AWA was unconstitutional because

the offenses took place prior to the “enactment” of S.B. 10 in June 2007.

Consequently, we sustain the third assigned error, and vacate Hartman’s

classification as a Tier II Offender under the AWA, and remand the matter

for reclassification under the law that was in effect at the time he committed

the offenses.

{¶ 6} Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 5 It is ordered that appellee and appellant share the costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this

judgment into execution. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of

sentence.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to

Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR