State v. Smith, (Ohio 2009)
Linked as:
Summary
Appeal from denial of petition to contest the application of the Adam Walsh Act, S.B. 10. State v. Barker, Montgomery App. No. 22963, 2009-Ohio-2774 followed. Affirmed.
Summary
Appeal from denial of petition to contest the application of the Adam Walsh Act, S.B. 10. State v. Barker, Montgomery App. No. 22963, 2009-Ohio-2774 followed. Affirmed.
Text
[Cite as State v. Smith, 2009-Ohio-3036.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: Appellate Case No. 22982 Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
Trial Court Case No. 08-CV-930 v.
:
: (Criminal Appeal from BRUCE SMITH : (Common Pleas Court) :
Defendant-Appellant
:
:
. . . . . . . . . . .
O P I N I O N
Rendered on the 19th day of June, 2009.
. . . . . . . . . . .
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by DOUGLAS M. TROUT, Atty. Reg. #0072027, Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
DENNIS A. LIEBERMAN, Atty. Reg. #0029460, 15 West Fourth Street, Suite 100, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
FAIN, J.
In 2002, defendant-appellant Smith pled guilty to the rape of a child under the age of 13. He was classified as a Sexually Oriented Offender, the lowest possible classification.
In 2007, the Attorney-General of Ohio classified Smith as a Tier III sex
- 1 -
-2-
offender under R.C. Chapter 2950. Smith filed a Petition to Contest the Application of the Adam Walsh Act (S.B. 10), in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. His petition was denied.
Smith appeals from the denial of his petition. Smith and the State have each filed with this court notice of their intentions to rely exclusively upon the briefs filed by the defendant and by the State, respectively, in State v. Barker, Montgomery App.
No. 22963, 2009-Ohio-2774. Neither Smith nor the State has filed a separate brief in this appeal.
In State v. Barker, supra, we have overruled the defendant's sole assignment of error and have affirmed the order of the trial court. Upon the authority of State v. Barker, supra, we similarly overrule Smith's assignment of error. The order of the trial court from which this appeal is taken is Affirmed.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
BROGAN and FROELICH, JJ., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck Douglas M. Trout Dennis A. Lieberman Hon. Mary Lynn Wiseman
- 2 -
Sponsored links
