State v. Ulmer

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Ulmer

911 N.E.2d 942, 182 Ohio App. 3d 96, 2009 Ohio 1737

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2009

DocketNo. L-08-1031.

StatusPublished

This text of 911 N.E.2d 942 (State v. Ulmer) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Ulmer, 911 N.E.2d 942, 182 Ohio App. 3d 96, 2009 Ohio 1737 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Handwork, Judge.

{¶ 1} In this appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, appellant, Joshua Ulmer, pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful conduct with a minor, both violations of R.C. 2907.04(A) and (B)(1) and felonies of the *98 fourth degree. The trial court sentenced appellant to serve six months at the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio and four years of community control, with express conditions, e.g., random urinalysis. The judge further determined that under R.C. 2950.01, et seq., as amended by S.B. 10, Ohio’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, appellant was a Tier II sex offender and, consequently, is required to register as such for a period of 25 years, with “in person” verification to occur every 180 days. The trial court did not impose a community-notification requirement. Appellant appeals his classification and asserts the following assignment of error:

{¶ 2} “Whether the application of Senate Bill 10 violates the United States and Ohio Constitutions? [sic]”

{¶ 3} Appellant first claims that S.B. 10 is retroactive legislation that is punitive, not remedial, in nature and, thus, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. This court, as well as several other appellate courts, rejected this contention. See Montgomery v. Leffler, 6th Dist. No. H-08-011, 2008-Ohio-6397, 2008 WL 5147935, ¶ 22; State v. Bodyke, 6th Dist. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387, 2008 WL 5148003, ¶ 19. See also, e.g., State v. Ellis, 8th Dist. No. 90844, 2008-Ohio-6283, 2008 WL 5096923, ¶ 40; In re Kristopher W., 5th Dist. No. 2008 AP030022, 2008-Ohio-6075, 2008 WL 4965172, ¶ 40; State v. Byers, 7th Dist. No. 07CO39, 2008-Ohio-5051, 2008 WL 4416519, ¶ 28. We therefore find appellant’s contention on this issue meritless.

{¶ 4} Appellant next argues that S.B. 10 violates Section 28, Article II, Ohio Constitution, which prohibits the enactment of retroactive laws. This argument is found without merit on the authority of State v. Bodyke, ¶ 19, and Montgomery v. Leffler, ¶ 23. Finally, appellant maintains that S.B. 10 abrogates the separation-of-powers principle that is inherent in Ohio’s constitutional framework. This constitutional challenge is found without merit on the authority of State v. Bodyke, ¶ 22, and Montgomery v. Leffler, ¶ 26. Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is found not well taken.

{¶ 5} The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is 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.

Judgment affirmed.

Skow, P.J., and Singer, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Handwork, Judge.

{¶ 1} In this appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, appellant, Joshua Ulmer, pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful conduct with a minor, both violations of R.C. 2907.04(A) and (B)(1) and felonies of the *98 fourth degree. The trial court sentenced appellant to serve six months at the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio and four years of community control, with express conditions, e.g., random urinalysis. The judge further determined that under R.C. 2950.01, et seq., as amended by S.B. 10, Ohio’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, appellant was a Tier II sex offender and, consequently, is required to register as such for a period of 25 years, with “in person” verification to occur every 180 days. The trial court did not impose a community-notification requirement. Appellant appeals his classification and asserts the following assignment of error:

{¶ 2} “Whether the application of Senate Bill 10 violates the United States and Ohio Constitutions? [sic]”

{¶ 3} Appellant first claims that S.B. 10 is retroactive legislation that is punitive, not remedial, in nature and, thus, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. This court, as well as several other appellate courts, rejected this contention. See Montgomery v. Leffler, 6th Dist. No. H-08-011, 2008-Ohio-6397, 2008 WL 5147935, ¶ 22; State v. Bodyke, 6th Dist. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387, 2008 WL 5148003, ¶ 19. See also, e.g., State v. Ellis, 8th Dist. No. 90844, 2008-Ohio-6283, 2008 WL 5096923, ¶ 40; In re Kristopher W., 5th Dist. No. 2008 AP030022, 2008-Ohio-6075, 2008 WL 4965172, ¶ 40; State v. Byers, 7th Dist. No. 07CO39, 2008-Ohio-5051, 2008 WL 4416519, ¶ 28. We therefore find appellant’s contention on this issue meritless.

{¶ 4} Appellant next argues that S.B. 10 violates Section 28, Article II, Ohio Constitution, which prohibits the enactment of retroactive laws. This argument is found without merit on the authority of State v. Bodyke, ¶ 19, and Montgomery v. Leffler, ¶ 23. Finally, appellant maintains that S.B. 10 abrogates the separation-of-powers principle that is inherent in Ohio’s constitutional framework. This constitutional challenge is found without merit on the authority of State v. Bodyke, ¶ 22, and Montgomery v. Leffler, ¶ 26. Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is found not well taken.

{¶ 5} The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is 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.

Judgment affirmed.

Skow, P.J., and Singer, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

911 N.E.2d 942, 182 Ohio App. 3d 96, 2009 Ohio 1737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ulmer-ohioctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack