Ohio: State v. Spangler
This is not a new ruling. It dates back to June 2009, but we found we had not adequately posted this ruling in our blogs.
sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com: Ohio court declares sex offender law a violation of the “Separations of Powers” clause and unconstitutional.
The 11th Appellate Dist court of Ohio has found the changes made by Senate bill 10 (made according to the Adam Walsh Act) unconstitutional in the case of Spangler v. State, 2009-Ohio-3178. Opinion issued 6-30-2009 which goes as follows:
Appellant, Raymond J. Spangler, appeals the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, denying his Petition to Contest Reclassification and classifying him a Tier II Sex Offender. The fundamental principle of the “separation of powers” doctrine as written by our forefathers in the United States Constitution is inviolate, and, therefore, mandates reversal of the decision of the court below. However, Spangler must still comply with the notification and registration requirements under his original sentence.
On January 23, 2001, Spangler was convicted, in Case No. 2000-CR-276, of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, of Attempted Corruption of a Minor, a felony of the fifth degree in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and R.C. 2907.04(A), and Public Indecency, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree in violation of R.C. 2907.09(A). At the time of his conviction, Spangler was seventy-three years old. The charges against Spangler stemmed from allegations that he had exposed himself to and fondled neighborhood children six or seven years previously.
On April 27, 2001, Spangler was sentenced to five years of community control, fined $350, and ordered to register for a period of ten years as a sexually oriented offender. Spangler was also required to annually verify his current residence and/or place of employment by personally appearing before the sheriff of the county, pursuant to former R.C. 2950.06(A) and (B)(2).
On November 26, 2007, the Office of the Attorney General issued Spangler Notice of New Classification and Registration Duties Tier II Sex Offender (Adult). Spangler was advised “of changes to Ohio’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2950, ‘SORN’) *** due to Ohio Senate Bill 10, passed to implement the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.” Under the new classification, Spangler is a “Tier II Sex Offender” and “required to register personally with the local sheriff’s office every 180 days for 25 years.”
On January 23, 2008, Spangler filed a Petition to Contest Reclassification, pursuant to R.C. 2950.031(E) and R.C. 2950.032(E), in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, the county in which he resides and currently registers.
On March 20, 2008, a hearing was held on Spangler’s Petition. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge denied the Petition and reclassified Spangler a Tier II Sex Offender. On March 24, 2008, the trial court memorialized its decision in a written Judgment Entry.
On April 22, 2008, Spangler filed his Notice of Appeal with this court. Spangler raises the following assignments of error on appeal.
“[1.] The retroactive application of Ohio’s SB 10 violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws in Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.”
“[2.] The retroactive application of Ohio’s AWA violates the prohibition on retroactive laws in Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution.”
“[3.] Reclassification of defendant-appellant constitutes a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.”
“[4.] Reclassification of defendant-appellant constitutes impermissible multiple punishments under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.”
“[5.] The residency restrictions of the AWA violate Due Process Clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Ohio Constitution.”
“[6.] Defendant-appellant cannot be subjected to the community notification requirements under pre-AWA law.”
“[7.] Defendant-appellant cannot be subjected to the community notification requirements under the AWA because it would violate the contract clause of the Ohio Constitution and the plea agreement entered into with the State of Ohio in the underlying criminal proceeding.”
These assignments are considered out of order for the sake of clarity of presentation. …For the remainder of the opinion.. by 11th Appellate Dist Court