State v. Moody, L-08-1108 (1-9-2009)
This text of 2009 Ohio 47 (State v. Moody, L-08-1108 (1-9-2009)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth a single assignment of error: *Page 2
{¶ 3} "The retroactive application of Senate Bill 10 violates the Ex Post Facto, Due Process, and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States Constitution and the Retroactivity Clause of Section
{¶ 4} On February 27, 2008, appellant entered a no contest plea to one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor in violation of R.C.
{¶ 5} Appellant now challenges the constitutionality of Ohio's Senate Bill 10, effective January 1, 2008, which eliminated the prior sex offender classifications and substituted a three-tier classification system based on the offense committed. Appellant maintains that R.C. Chapter
{¶ 6} In support of his sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that by tying sex offender classification, registration and notification requirements directly to the crime of conviction, S.B. 10 has created a sex offender registration scheme that is no longer remedial and civil in nature but punitive. As such, appellant argues, the retroactive application of S.B. 10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution and the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution.
{¶ 7} Upon thorough review of appellant's arguments, we shall follow the law set forth in our decision in Montgomery v. Leffler, 6th Dist. No. H-08-011,
{¶ 8} On consideration whereof, this court finds that appellant was not prejudiced and the judgments of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App. R. 24. Judgment for the clerk's expense incurred in preparation of the record, fees allowed by law, and the fee for filing the appeal is awarded to Lucas County.
*Page 4JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App. R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist. Loc. App. R. 4.
Peter M. Handwork, J., Mark L. Pietrykowski, J., Thomas J. Osowik, J., CONCUR. *Page 1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2009 Ohio 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moody-l-08-1108-1-9-2009-ohioctapp-2009.