Home > Constitution, Education, Legal / Official Info, Legal Challenges > Ohio Adam Walsh Act – Case Law

Ohio Adam Walsh Act – Case Law

February 22, 2009

Attorney Information – Senate Bill 10

| Ohio Supreme Court | Common Pleas Courts | Federal Courts | Related Cases in Ohio |

| Related Litigation in Other States | Sample Motions | Court Orders | County Information |


Ohio Supreme Court

Accepted for review:

Chojnacki v. Dann (2008-0991, 2008-0992, consolidated)

Certified conflict: “Whether a decision denying a request for appointment of counsel in a reclassification hearing held pursuant to Ohio’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, Senate Bill 10, is a final appealable order.”

In re D.S. (2008-1624)

PropLaw I: The application of SB 10 to persons who committed their offenses prior to the enactment of SB 10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

PropLaw II: The application of SB 10 to persons who committed their offenses prior to the enactment of SB 10 violates the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution.

PropLaw III: The application of SB 10 violates the United States Constitution’s prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments.

PropLaw IV: A juvenile court has no authority to classify a juvenile, adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense, as a juvenile sex offender registrant when the statutory provisions governing such a hearing were repealed at the time the hearing was conducted.

In re G.E.S. (2008-1926) Appeal accepted and held for the decision in 2008-1624, In re Smith;

briefing stayed.

PropLaw I: An appellate court’s finding that a lower court had discretion in determining a juvenile’s registration tier level under Senate Bill 10 requires the reversal and remanding of the lower court’s decision, when the lower court expressly held that no such discretion existed.

PropLaw II: The application of Senate Bill 10 to persons who committed their offenses prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

PropLaw III: The application of Senate Bill 10 to persons who committed their offense prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution.

Motion to accept discretionary appeal pending:

In re A.R. (2009-0223)

In re M.G. (2008-2257)

In re R.C. (2008-2392)

State v. Bodyke, (2008-2502)

Ohio Courts of Appeals

First District

State v. Clay, 1st Dist. No. C-070752, 2008-Ohio-2980 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law not moot)

Second District

In re: State of Ohio, ex rel., Stephen Michael Anspach, 2nd Dist. No. 22599, 2008-Ohio-3859 (petition for writ of prohibition dismissed)

In re: State of Ohio, ex rel., Jeremy G. Compton, 2nd Dist. No. 22597, 2008-Ohio-3861 (petition for writ of prohibition dismissed)

In re: State of Ohio, ex rel., Robert Kinsler, 2nd Dist. No. 22623, 2008-Ohio-3872 (petition for writ of prohibition challenging reclassification dismissed)

In re: State of Ohio, ex rel., Brian Ludwig, 2nd Dist. No. 22550, 2008-Ohio-3873 (petition for writ of prohibition dismissed)

In re: State of Ohio, ex rel., Daniel Watkins II, 2nd Dist. No. 07-CA-80, 2008-Ohio-3877 (writ of mandamus challenging reclassification denied)

State v. Cook, 2nd Dist. No. 2008 CA 19, 2008-Ohio-6543 (definition of “sexually oriented offense” does not include offenses that were added by SB 10 if they were committed prior to SB 10’s effective date)

State v. Desbiens, 2nd Dist. No. 22489, 2008-Ohio-3375 (ex post facto, substantive/procedural due process, right to contract, overbroad & unconstitutionally impermissible)

State v. King, 2nd Dist. No. 08-CA-02, 2008-Ohio-2594 (no right to counsel in SB 10 reclassification hearings)

State v. Landers, 2nd Dist. No. 2006-CA-42, 2008-Ohio-422 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law considered)

State vs. Moore, 2nd Dist. No. 07CA093, 2008-Ohio-6238 (retroactivity, ex post facto)

Third District

In re Gant, 3rd Dist. No. 1-08-11, 2008-Ohio-5198 (ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, right to contract, history & purpose of juvenile court system)

In re: Objection to Reclassification for Brown, 3rd Dist. Nos. 9-08-18 & 9-08-19, 2008-Ohio-5403 (denial of counsel in reclassification challenge hearing not final appealable order, does not affect substantial right)

In re Smith, 3rd Dist. No. 1-07-58, 2008-Ohio-3234 (no-law argument, ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers)

State v. Duncan, 3rd Dist. No. 7-08-03, 2008-Ohio-5830 (ex post facto, due process)

State v. Horch, 3rd Dist. No. 14-07-47, 2008-Ohio-1484 (separation of powers, retroactivity, double jeopardy, ex post facto)

State v. Sheriff, 3rd Dist. No. 8-08-04, 2008-Ohio-5192 (notification of registration duties via notification form is sufficient)

State v. Worthington, 3rd Dist. No. 7-07-62, 2008-Ohio-3222 (ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, due process)

Fourth District

State v. Longpre, 4th Dist. No. 08CA3017, 2008-Ohio-3832 (ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity)

Fifth District

In re Adrian R., 5th Dist. No. 08-CA-17, 2008-Ohio-6581 (due process, ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, cruel and unusual punishment, IAC for failure to understand new classification law, neither court nor parties clear on specifics of new law)

In re Carr, 5th Dist. No. 08 CA 19, 2008-Ohio-5689 (no-law argument)

In re Kristopher W., 5th Dist. No. 2008 AP 03 0022, 2008-Ohio-6075 (ex post facto, retroactivity, due process)

In re Marcio A., 5th Dist. No. 2007 CA 00149, 2008-Ohio-4523 (no-law argument)

In re Timothy C., 5th Dist. No. 08 CA 27, 2008-Ohio-5675 (ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, separation of powers challenges waived)

State v. Gooding, 5th Dist. No. 08 CA 5, 2008-Ohio-5954 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

State v. Graves, 5th Dist. No. 07CA3004, 2008-Ohio-5763 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law is moot)

Sixth District

Montgomery v. Leffler, 6th Dist. No. H-08-011, 2008-Ohio-6397 (separation of powers, double jeopardy, due process, equal protection, bills of attainder, cruel and unusual punishment, contracts)

State v. Bodyke, 6th Dist. No. H-07-040, 2008-Ohio-6387 (ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity, contracts)

State v. Dombrosky, 6th Dist. No. WD-07-082, 2008-Ohio-6530 (challenges to classifications done prior to Jan. 1, 2008 are premature, as appellants have not suffered injury due to SB 10)

State v. Duncan, 6th Dist. No. F-08-003, 2008-Ohio-6802 (ex post facto, retroactivity, residency restrictions violate due process)

State v. Moody, 6th Dist. No. L-08-1108, L-08-1109, 2009-Ohio-47 (ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity)

State v. Stockman, 6th Dist. No. L-08-1077, 2009-Ohio-266 (retroactivity, separation of powers, ex post facto, community notification)

State v. Taft , 6th Dist. No. WD-07-059, 2008-Ohio-5790 (double jeopardy, ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers)

Seventh District

State v. Byers, 7th Dist. No. 07 CO 39, 2008-Ohio-5051 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, cruel & unusual punishment, due process, double jeopardy, no law)

State v. Jones, 7th Dist. No. 07 MA 58, 2008-Ohio-6078 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law is moot)

Eighth District

In re E.L., 8th Dist. No. 90848, 2008-Ohio-5094 (no-law argument)

State v. Ellis, 8th Dist. No. 90844, 2008-Ohio-6283 (ex post facto, retroactivity, double jeopardy, no-law argument)

State v. Holloman-Cross, 8th Dist. No. 90351, 2008-Ohio-2189 (ex post facto, due process)

State v. Luks, 8th Dist. No. 89869, 2008-Ohio-3974 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law is moot)

State v. Rabel, 8th Dist. No. 91280, 2009-Ohio-350 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

Ninth District

In re E.B., 9th Dist. No. 24148, 2008-Ohio-5441 (separation of powers, ex post facto, retroactivity, juvenile court discretion)

In re G.E.S., 9th Dist. No. 24079, 2008-Ohio-4076 (ex post facto, separation of powers, unconstitutionally vague)

In re R.P., 9th Dist. No. 23967, 2008-Ohio-2673 (ex post facto, retroactivity, no-law argument)

In re T.H., 9th Dist. No. 24147, 2008-Ohio-4843 (separation of powers, ex post facto, retroactivity, juvenile court discretion)

In re W.H., 9th Dist. No. 23936, 2008-Ohio-4337 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

State v. Honey, 9th Dist. No. 08CA0018-M, 2008-Ohio-4943 (retroactivity, ex post facto, substantive due process

State v. Ralston, 9th Dist. No. 08CA009384, 2008-Ohio-6347 (ex post facto, retroactivity)

State v. Williams, 9th Dist. No. 08CA009350, 2008-Ohio-3586 (state’s appeal: trial court lacks jurisdiction to reclassify at Bezak resentencing hearing, when statute allows only AG to reclassify)

Tenth District

State v. Christian, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-170, 2008-Ohio-6304 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, substantive due process, procedural due process, double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment)

Eleventh District

State v. Brunelle-Apley, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-014, 2008-Ohio-6412 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law considered)

State v. Johnson, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-015, 2008-Ohio-4666 (appeal of classification under pre-AWA law; dissent says appeal moot)

State v. Swank, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-019, 2008-Ohio-6059 (ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, substantive & procedural due process)

Twelfth District

In re A.R., 12th Dist. No. CA2008-03-036, 2008-Ohio-6566 (due process, ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, double jeopardy)

In re S.R.P., 12th Dist. No. CA2007-11-027, 2009-Ohio-11 (no-law argument, due process, ex post facto, retroactivity, separation of powers, cruel and unusual punishments, double jeopardy, mandatory vs. discretionary classification of juveniles)

State vs. Williams, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-02-029, 2008-Ohio-6195 (ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, retroactivity, separation of powers)

Common Pleas Courts

Cuyahoga County

Tremaine Evans v. State of Ohio (SB 10 violates retroactivity clause of Ohio Constitution and ex post facto clause of U.S. Constitution; sexual predator laws are classic forms of punishment, residency restrictions operate as a disability, sexual predator laws further traditional notions of punishment, AWA not tailored to meet non-punitive purpose)

Franklin County

State of Ohio v. Rubin T. Toles (Changes to frequency and duration of registration not unconstitutional; increased information required to be disclosed, residency restrictions, and increase in penalties for failure to register violate Ohio Constitution’s retroactivity clause; Individual previously determined not to be a sexual predator or who had not had a sexual predator hearing cannot now be subject to community notification)

Lorain County

Ronald Brooks vs. State of Ohio (SB 10 remedial and not punitive, rationally related to the public good and lowering recidivism; SB 10’s residency restrictions unconstitutional; they affect an accrued substantive right and go “far beyond the reasonable monitoring of the whereabouts of the Petitioners.”)

Richland County

William Sigler v. State of Ohio (Designation as sexually oriented offender part of sentence; legislatively changing classification and increasing duration of duties not remedial changes: violate retroactivity and ex post facto; SB 10 constitutes breach of contract when plea agreement includes agreement about classification)

Federal Court

Class Action Lawsuit, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio
This lawsuit resulted in an extension of the 60-filing deadline for SB 10 reclassification challenge petitions and a stay of community notification. The order was issued Feb. 6, 2008 and dissolved June 9, 2008.

For information on federal court rulings from across the nation, please see:

Related Cases in Ohio

Mikaloff v. Walsh: the Northern District of Ohio held that Ohio’s sex offender residency restrictions are punitive and that they violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution when applied retroactively.

Hyle v. Porter: the Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio’s residency restrictions do not apply retroactively to someone who bought his home and committed his offense before the effective date of the statute.

State v. Ferguson: the Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio’s pre-AWA SORN law does not violate the ex post facto and retroactivity clauses of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions.

Related Litigation in Other States

Kansas
In the Matter of L.M.
, Kansas Supreme Court (juveniles have a constitutional right to jury trials)

Nevada
ACLU of Nevada v. Masto
, permanent injunction, U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, enjoining enforcement of Nevada’s Adam Walsh Act (ex post facto, double jeopardy, contract clause, due process)

South Dakota
In re Z.B.
, South Dakota Supreme Court (including juveniles on state sex offender registry violates equal protection)

Sample Motions

Court Orders

County Information

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: