Stansell v. State, (Ohio 2009)
Linked as:
Summary
Adam Walsh Act
Summary
Adam Walsh Act
Text
[Cite as Stansell v. State, 2009-Ohio-4748.]
COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES: MICHAEL STANSELL : William B. Hoffman, P.J.
: Julie A. Edwards, J.
Petitioner-Appellee : Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: -vs- : Case No. 2008 CA 213
:
: STATE OF OHIO : O P I N I O N
Respondent-Appel ant
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:
Civil Appeal from Richland County
Court of Common Pleas Case No.
08-CV-265D
JUDGMENT:
Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:
August 31, 2009
APPEARANCES: For Petitioner-Appellee
For Respondent-Appellant
MICHAEL STANSELL
FRANK ARDIS, JR.
Inmate #A355967
KIRSTEN PSCHOLKA-GARTNER Grafton Correctional Institution
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney's 2500 South Avon Beldon Road
Richland County Prosecutor's Office Grafton, Ohio 44044
38 South Park
Mansfield, Ohio
- 1 -
[Cite as Stansell v. State, 2009-Ohio-4748.]
Edwards, J.
Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals a judgment of the Richland County Common Pleas Court finding Senate Bil 10, Ohio's Adam Walsh Act, to be unconstitutional. Appellee is Michael Stansell.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
In 1989, appellee Michael Stansell was convicted in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, of rape, gross sexual imposition, pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor and illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance. While incarcerated in Richland County, appellee received notice that effective January 1, 2008, he would be reclassified for purposes of sex offender registration pursuant to Senate Bill 10, the Adam Walsh Act effective July 1, 2007. On January 31, 2008, appellee filed a petition in the Richland County Common Pleas Court to contest his sex offender registration reclassification, alleging that the Act is unconstitutional.
The trial court found that based on Sigler v. State of Ohio, Case Number 07 CV 1863, in which the trial court had found the Adam Walsh Act to be an unconstitutional violation of the ex post facto clause and the prohibition on retroactive laws, application of the Act to appellee was barred because he had been previously sentenced and classified under the law in existence when he was sentenced.
The state assigns four errors on appeal:
"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
- 2 -
Richland County App. Case No. 2008 CA 213 3
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 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] PRE-EXISTING 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 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 LEGISLATIVE 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' SENTENSES [SIC] FOR THE CRIMES THEY COMMITTED.
- 3 -
Richland County App. Case No. 2008 CA 213 4
"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." I, II, III, IV
The assignments of error raised by appellant are identical to those raised by the State of Ohio in Sigler v. Ohio, Richland App. No. 08-CA-79, 2009-Ohio-2010. In Sigler, we sustained all four assignments of error, finding that the trial court erred in finding the Adam Walsh Act facially unconstitutional, and erred in finding the Act is unconstitutionally retroactive and violates the ex post facto clause. We further found that the changes in the registration law did not impinge upon an offender's right to contract by way of a plea agreement.
- 4 -
Richland County App. Case No. 2008 CA 213 5
For the reasons stated in Sigler, supra, we sustain all four of appellant's assignments of error.
The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
By: Edwards, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and Delaney, J. concur
____________________
____________________
____________________
JUDGES JAE/r
- 5 -
[Cite as Stansell v. State, 2009-Ohio-4748.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MICHAEL STANSELL :
:
Petitioner-Appellee :
:
: -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY :
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Respondent-Appel ant :
CASE NO. 2008 CA 213
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs assessed to appellee.
____________________
____________________
____________________
JUDGES
- 6 -
Sponsored links
