Biggs v. State, (Ohio 2009)
Linked as:
Summary
Adam Walsh Case
Summary
Adam Walsh Case
Text
[Cite as Biggs v. State, 2009-Ohio-3404.]
COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES: ROBERT L. BIGGS : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Petitioner-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer J.
: -vs- :
: Case No. 08-CA-224 STATE OF OHIO :
: Respondent-Appel ant : O P I N I O N
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 08-CV-357D
JUDGMENT:
Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 9, 2009
APPEARANCES: For Petitioner-Appellee For Respondent-Appellant
ROBERT L. BIGGS PRO SE FRANK ARDIS, JR.
IM # A508039 KIRSTEN PSCHOLKA-GARTNER Toledo Correctional Institute Richland County Prosecutor's Office 2001 East Central Ave 38 South Park Toledo, OH 43608 Mansfield, OH
- 1 -
[Cite as Biggs v. State, 2009-Ohio-3404.]
Gwin, P.J.
Respondent-appellant the State of Ohio appeals a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, which found Senate Bill 10, Ohio's Sexual Offender classification and registration scheme, to be unconstitutional in its entirety.
Petitioner-appellee is Robert L. Biggs. Appel ant assigns four errors to the trial court:
"I. WHETHER BEYOND A REASONABKE [SIC] DOUBT, SENATE BILL 10 AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CITED BY THE TRIAL COURT ARE CLEARLY INCOMPATIBLE, AND WHETHER THERE IS NO SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE SENATE BILL 10 WOULD BE VALID. THE TRIAL COURT PURPORTED TO INVALIDATE THE LEGISLATION, RATHER THAN THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS ACTUALLY AT ISSUE IN THIS MATTER. HENCE, BY INVALIDATING THE "ADAM WALSH ACT," THE COURT APPARENTLY PURPORTED TO INVALIDATE EVERY STATUTE [SIC] AMENDED BY THE SB 10, DESPITE THE NARROW CLAIM BEFORE IT. THE COURT BELOW DID NOT PROPERLY APPLY, OR SUBSTANTIATE DIVERGENCE FROM, THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.
"II. WHETHER SENATE BILL 10'S LEGISLATIVE ADJUSTMENT TO THE FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF APPELLE'S [SIC] PREEXISTING DUTY TO REGISTER RENDERED THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RETROACTIVE. A STATUTE FOUND TO BE RETROACTIVE IS ONLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF IT SIGNIFICANTLY BURDENS A VESTED SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, BUT NOT IF IT IS REMEDIAL. AS THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD UNDER THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AMENDED BY THE SENATE BILL 10, THAT
- 2 -
Richland County, Case No. 08-CA-224 3
FRAMEWORK IS REMEDIAL IN NATURE. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY EXPRESSED ITS INTENT THAT R.C. CHAPTER 2950, AS AMENDED, REMAIN REMEDIAL IN NATURE.
"III. WHETHER SENATE BILL 10'S ADJUSTMENT TO THE FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF APPELLEE'S PRE-EXISTING DUTY TO REGISTER CONSTITUTED SUCCESSIVE PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE. IT WAS, INSTEAD, A REMEDIAL, CIVIL STATUTE THAT DID NOT IMPACT OFFENDERS' SENTENCES FOR THE CRIMES THEY COMMITTED.
"IV. WHETHER A PLEA AGREEMENT BETWEEN AN OFFENDER AND THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY CREATED A VESTED, SETTLED EXPECTATION THAT THE OFFENDER'S CLASSIFICATION WOULD NEVER CHANGE. THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF SB 10, AND PRIOR CLASSIFICATIONS IMPOSED PURSUANT TO STATUTE BY THE COURT, DO NOT, AND DID NOT, CREATE THE EXPECTATION THAT CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS WOULD NEVER AGAIN BE THE SUBJECT OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION."
Appellee was convicted of gross sexual imposition in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in 2006. Appellee al eges as part of a plea bargain, he was to be classified a sexually oriented offender and required to register for five years.
Appellee received a notice of new classification and registration duties under R.C. 2950.01 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 10, also known as the "Adam Walsh Act". The statute as amended was effective July 1, 2007, after appellee's conviction and sentencing. Appellee contested the reclassification, asserting the new legislation violates several provisions of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, and
- 3 -
Richland County, Case No. 08-CA-224 4
imposes new obligations and additional substantial burdens on him. He also alleged the change in registry requirements directly violates his original plea agreement.
The trial court found Senate Bill 10 is unconstitutional both facially and as applied to appellee because it violates the prohibitions against both retroactive and ex post facto laws. The trial court cited its decision in Sigler v. State, Richland Common Pleas Case No. 07CV1863, and granted judgment in favor of appellee.
The State of Ohio appealed the matter to this court.
I, II, III, & IV
In each assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in finding Senate Bill 10 to be unconstitutional on multiple grounds. We agree.
The court cited its decision in Sigler, supra, wherein it found Senate Bill 10 unconstitutional. However, this court has since reversed the court's decision. Sigler v.
State, Richland App. No. 08-CA-79, 2009-Ohio-2010. In Sigler, we found, as courts across Ohio have repeatedly held, Senate Bill 10 is constitutional and does not violate prohibitions against retroactive or ex post facto laws. Id. at paragraph 89.
In accord with our previous holding in Sigler, each of appellant's assignments of error is sustained.
- 4 -
Richland County, Case No. 08-CA-224 5
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, Ohio, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with law and consistent with this opinion.
By Gwin, P.J., Hoffman, J., and Farmer, J., concur
____________________
HON.
W.
SCOTT GWIN
____________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
____________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER WSG:clw
- 5 -
[Cite as Biggs v. State, 2009-Ohio-3404.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ROBERT L. BIGGS :
:
Petitioner-Appellee :
:
: -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY :
STATE OF OHIO :
:
: Respondent-Appel ant :
CASE NO. 08-CA-224
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, Ohio, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with law and consistent with this opinion. Costs to appel ee.
____________________
HON.
W.
SCOTT GWIN
____________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
____________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
- 6 -
Sponsored links
