Home > Constitution, Education, Legal / Official Info, Legal Challenges, What You Must Do > OH Supreme Court : Fall 2009 Adam Walsh Cases

OH Supreme Court : Fall 2009 Adam Walsh Cases

August 13, 2009

Ohio Public Defender – Adam Walsh Act , Attorney Information

The following cases are expected to be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court this Fall 2009, although we cannot yet locate them on the Clerk of Courts Calendar schedule. We will post any information which is found relating to this cases. If any reader has information about these cases as they approach the Ohio Supreme Court, please send links to constitutionalfights@yahoo.com

Cases Accepted for Review in the Ohio Supreme Court:

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.”

On March 23, 2009, the Court ordered the parties to brief the following issues:

  • Whether sex offender reclassification hearings conducted pursuant to the provision of Am.Sub.S.B. 10 are criminal or civil proceedings.
  • Whether sex offenders are entitled to the appointment of counsel for Am.Sub.S.B. 10 reclassification hearings if those proceedings are civil in nature.

In re Adrian R. (2009-0189)

PropLaw I: The retroactive application of Senate Bill 10 to juveniles whose offense was committed prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the juvenile’s right to Due Process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution.

In re Smith (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for a sex offense, as a juvenile sex offender registrant when the statutory provisions governing such a hearing were repealed at the time the hearing was conducted.

*Oral argument will be held on the same day as State v. Bodyke (2008-2502)

State v. Bodyke, (2008-2502)

PropLaw I: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders whose crimes occurred before its effective date violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

PropLaw II: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio’s version of the version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders whose crimes occurred before its effective date violates the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution.

PropLaw III: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders who were classified under Megan’s Law effectively vacates valid judicial orders, and violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine embodied in the Ohio Constitution.

PropLaw IV: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders who have previously been sentenced for sex offenses violates the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

PropLaw V: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders who have previously been subject to the provisions of either the 1996 or 2003 version of Megan’s Law violates Due Process and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

PropLaw VI: Application of S.B. 10, Ohio’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, to offenders who, pursuant to agreement with the Prosecutor and before the Act’s effective date, entered pleas of guilty or no contest impairs the obligation of contracts as protected by the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

*Oral argument will be held on the same day as In re Smith (2008-1624).


Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: