[Cite as State v. Logan, 2014-Ohio-5150.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101334
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ANTOINE K. LOGAN
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-95-319943-ZA
BEFORE: Boyle, A.J., Celebrezze, J., and McCormack, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 20, 2014 FOR APPELLANT
Antoine Logan, pro se Inmate No. 311-350 Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: James M. Price Frank Romeo Zeleznikar Assistant County Prosecutors Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Antoine Logan, appeals from his classification as a sexually
oriented offender. Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.
Procedural History and Facts
{¶2} In February 1995, Logan was indicted on a single count of rape in violation of
R.C. 2907.02 and ultimately was convicted following a jury trial. On July 26, 1995, the trial
court sentenced Logan to a prison term of 7 to 25 years. Logan appealed his conviction and
sentence, which this court affirmed in State v. Logan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69535, 1996 Ohio
App. LEXIS 4394 (Oct. 3, 1996).
{¶3} In February 2014, the trial court ordered the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s
Department to transport Logan, who was incarcerated, to the court for purposes of a “sexual
predator/HB-180 hearing.” The trial court further referred Logan to the court’s psychiatric
clinic for purposes of a sexual predator evaluation and Static 99. After being transferred, Logan
moved the trial court to transfer him back to prison and filed two successive motions opposing
any classification of him under the law.
{¶4} On April 2, 2014, the trial court held the hearing and found Logan to be a sexually
oriented offender under H.B. 180, better known as “Megan’s Law.” The journal entry
memorializing the court’s finding also notified Logan of his duty to register and report. From
that order, Logan now appeals, raising four assignments of error:
I. The court finding Antoine Logan to be a sexually oriented offender was a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because there was no substantial grounds upon which a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the trial court order of the sexual predator/HB-180 hearing was justified accordingly. II. The court committed reversible and prejudicial error when it failed to instruct the rights to an appeal to the appellant after imposing a sentence in a case of a serious nature.
III. It is error for the trial court to permit a prosecuting attorney to provide general characterization of the appellant when he was not qualified as an expert witness on that subject.
IV. The trial court improperly sentenced appellant to where the retroactivity of the law does not apply to his 1995 conviction.
{¶5} For ease of discussion, we will address these assignments of error out of order and
together where appropriate.
Retroactive Application of Megan’s Law
{¶6} In his fourth assignment of error, Logan argues that he should not be subject to a
classification under Megan’s Law, a sentencing scheme that was enacted after the time of his
underlying conviction. This argument, however, lacks merit.
{¶7} In 1996, the General Assembly enacted H.B. 180 (“Megan’s Law”), which
amended the state’s sex offender classification and registration process. State v. Cook, 83 Ohio
St.3d 404, 406, 700 N.E.2d 570 (1998). Portions of Megan’s Law became effective January 1,
1997, and other portions of the law became effective July 1, 1997. Id. The act provided for
judicial classification of a sex offender as a “sexually oriented” offender, a “habitual sex
offender,” or a “sexual predator.” Former R.C. 2950.01.
{¶8} In 2007, the General Assembly passed Am.Sub.S.B. 10, repealing Ohio’s Megan’s
Law and enacting classification, registration, and community notification requirements in
conformity with the 2006 Adam Walsh Act (“AWA”) passed by Congress.
{¶9} While the Ohio Supreme Court has found that R.C. Chapter 2950, as amended by
S.B. 10, and applied to sex offenders who committed an offense prior to the enactment of S.B. 10, violated the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution, the court rejected the same claim
with respect to Megan’s Law. See State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952
N.E.2d 1108. In Williams, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to reverse its prior decisions in
Cook and State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7, 2008-Ohio-4824, 896 N.E.2d 110, which
recognized that Megan’s Law is remedial and therefore does not violate the Retroactivity Clause
of the Ohio Constitution. Indeed, the Williams court reversed the judgment of the court of
appeals and remanded the matter for resentencing under Megan’s Law.
{¶10} Moreover, relying on this established Ohio Supreme Court precedent, this court has
repeatedly recognized that applying Megan’s Law to offenders who committed sexually oriented
offenses prior to the law’s enactment does not violate the Ohio Constitution. See State v.
Bonneau, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99437, 2013-Ohio-5021; see also State v. Larson, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 101000, 2014-Ohio-4685.1
{¶11} Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court applying Megan’s Law to Logan.
The fourth assignment of error is overruled.
Issues During the Hearing
{¶12} In his first three assignments of error, Logan raises arguments pertaining to matters
that occurred during his H.B. 180 hearing, including the trial court’s authority to act, the
presentation of witnesses, and the trial court’s advisement of Logan’s rights. The state counters
that Logan has failed to file a transcript of the hearing, and this court must therefore presume
regularity and summarily overrule his assignments of error.
We note that “pursuant to former R.C. 2950.09(C)(2)(a), for defendants who committed 1
their crimes prior to January 1, 1997, and who were sentenced beforehand, the trial court may conduct a sexual predator classification hearing at any time prior to defendant’s release from prison or up until a year after their release.” Larson at ¶ 14. {¶13} Logan has failed to file a transcript of the hearing. It is well settled that “an
appellant bears the burden of providing the reviewing court with a transcript of the proceedings
to demonstrate any claimed errors.” State v. Soverns, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101185,
2014-Ohio-4094, ¶ 6, citing State v. Blashaw, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98719, 2012-Ohio-6011, ¶
12. “‘When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted
from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and, thus, as to those assigned
errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and
affirm.’” State v. Simmons, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100638, 2014-Ohio-3038, ¶ 14, quoting
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980).
{¶14} While Logan’s failure to file a transcript is fatal to his first three assignments of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Logan, 2014-Ohio-5150.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101334
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ANTOINE K. LOGAN
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-95-319943-ZA
BEFORE: Boyle, A.J., Celebrezze, J., and McCormack, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 20, 2014 FOR APPELLANT
Antoine Logan, pro se Inmate No. 311-350 Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: James M. Price Frank Romeo Zeleznikar Assistant County Prosecutors Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Antoine Logan, appeals from his classification as a sexually
oriented offender. Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.
Procedural History and Facts
{¶2} In February 1995, Logan was indicted on a single count of rape in violation of
R.C. 2907.02 and ultimately was convicted following a jury trial. On July 26, 1995, the trial
court sentenced Logan to a prison term of 7 to 25 years. Logan appealed his conviction and
sentence, which this court affirmed in State v. Logan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69535, 1996 Ohio
App. LEXIS 4394 (Oct. 3, 1996).
{¶3} In February 2014, the trial court ordered the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s
Department to transport Logan, who was incarcerated, to the court for purposes of a “sexual
predator/HB-180 hearing.” The trial court further referred Logan to the court’s psychiatric
clinic for purposes of a sexual predator evaluation and Static 99. After being transferred, Logan
moved the trial court to transfer him back to prison and filed two successive motions opposing
any classification of him under the law.
{¶4} On April 2, 2014, the trial court held the hearing and found Logan to be a sexually
oriented offender under H.B. 180, better known as “Megan’s Law.” The journal entry
memorializing the court’s finding also notified Logan of his duty to register and report. From
that order, Logan now appeals, raising four assignments of error:
I. The court finding Antoine Logan to be a sexually oriented offender was a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because there was no substantial grounds upon which a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the trial court order of the sexual predator/HB-180 hearing was justified accordingly. II. The court committed reversible and prejudicial error when it failed to instruct the rights to an appeal to the appellant after imposing a sentence in a case of a serious nature.
III. It is error for the trial court to permit a prosecuting attorney to provide general characterization of the appellant when he was not qualified as an expert witness on that subject.
IV. The trial court improperly sentenced appellant to where the retroactivity of the law does not apply to his 1995 conviction.
{¶5} For ease of discussion, we will address these assignments of error out of order and
together where appropriate.
Retroactive Application of Megan’s Law
{¶6} In his fourth assignment of error, Logan argues that he should not be subject to a
classification under Megan’s Law, a sentencing scheme that was enacted after the time of his
underlying conviction. This argument, however, lacks merit.
{¶7} In 1996, the General Assembly enacted H.B. 180 (“Megan’s Law”), which
amended the state’s sex offender classification and registration process. State v. Cook, 83 Ohio
St.3d 404, 406, 700 N.E.2d 570 (1998). Portions of Megan’s Law became effective January 1,
1997, and other portions of the law became effective July 1, 1997. Id. The act provided for
judicial classification of a sex offender as a “sexually oriented” offender, a “habitual sex
offender,” or a “sexual predator.” Former R.C. 2950.01.
{¶8} In 2007, the General Assembly passed Am.Sub.S.B. 10, repealing Ohio’s Megan’s
Law and enacting classification, registration, and community notification requirements in
conformity with the 2006 Adam Walsh Act (“AWA”) passed by Congress.
{¶9} While the Ohio Supreme Court has found that R.C. Chapter 2950, as amended by
S.B. 10, and applied to sex offenders who committed an offense prior to the enactment of S.B. 10, violated the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution, the court rejected the same claim
with respect to Megan’s Law. See State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952
N.E.2d 1108. In Williams, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to reverse its prior decisions in
Cook and State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7, 2008-Ohio-4824, 896 N.E.2d 110, which
recognized that Megan’s Law is remedial and therefore does not violate the Retroactivity Clause
of the Ohio Constitution. Indeed, the Williams court reversed the judgment of the court of
appeals and remanded the matter for resentencing under Megan’s Law.
{¶10} Moreover, relying on this established Ohio Supreme Court precedent, this court has
repeatedly recognized that applying Megan’s Law to offenders who committed sexually oriented
offenses prior to the law’s enactment does not violate the Ohio Constitution. See State v.
Bonneau, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99437, 2013-Ohio-5021; see also State v. Larson, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 101000, 2014-Ohio-4685.1
{¶11} Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court applying Megan’s Law to Logan.
The fourth assignment of error is overruled.
Issues During the Hearing
{¶12} In his first three assignments of error, Logan raises arguments pertaining to matters
that occurred during his H.B. 180 hearing, including the trial court’s authority to act, the
presentation of witnesses, and the trial court’s advisement of Logan’s rights. The state counters
that Logan has failed to file a transcript of the hearing, and this court must therefore presume
regularity and summarily overrule his assignments of error.
We note that “pursuant to former R.C. 2950.09(C)(2)(a), for defendants who committed 1
their crimes prior to January 1, 1997, and who were sentenced beforehand, the trial court may conduct a sexual predator classification hearing at any time prior to defendant’s release from prison or up until a year after their release.” Larson at ¶ 14. {¶13} Logan has failed to file a transcript of the hearing. It is well settled that “an
appellant bears the burden of providing the reviewing court with a transcript of the proceedings
to demonstrate any claimed errors.” State v. Soverns, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101185,
2014-Ohio-4094, ¶ 6, citing State v. Blashaw, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98719, 2012-Ohio-6011, ¶
12. “‘When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted
from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and, thus, as to those assigned
errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and
affirm.’” State v. Simmons, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100638, 2014-Ohio-3038, ¶ 14, quoting
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980).
{¶14} While Logan’s failure to file a transcript is fatal to his first three assignments of
error, we also note that his arguments challenging the classification have no merit. Here, the
trial court classified Logan as a sexually oriented offender. The Ohio Supreme Court has
recognized that this designation attaches as a matter of law when the defendant has been
convicted of a sexually oriented offense as defined in former R.C. 2950.01(D), and is neither a
habitual sex offender nor a sexual predator. State v. Hayden, 96 Ohio St.3d 211,
2002-Ohio-4169, 773 N.E.2d 502, ¶ 12. Indeed, the Hayden court noted that the “Due Process
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and of Section 16,
Article I of the Ohio Constitution do not require a trial court to conduct a hearing to determine
whether a defendant is a sexually oriented offender.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶15} Under former R.C. 2950.01(D), rape, as defined under R.C. 2907.02, constitutes a
sexually oriented offense. Accordingly, we find no grounds to reverse the trial court’s
classification in this case.
{¶16} The first three assignments of error are overruled. {¶17} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas
court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MARY J. BOYLE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR