Opinion
No. 11AP-306 No. 11AP-307 No. 11AP-308 No. 11AP-309 No. 11AP-310 No. 11AP-314 No. 11AP-315 No. 11AP-316 No. 11AP-317 No. 11AP-318 No. 11AP-319 No. 11AP-320 No. 11AP-321 No. 11AP-322 No. 11AP-323 No. 11AP-324 No. 11AP-325 No. 11AP-326 No. 11AP-327 No. 11AP-328 No. 11AP-329 No. 11AP-330 No. 11AP-332 No. 11AP-333
11-01-2011
State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas E. May, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vernell Wade, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George Becker, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dewayne M. Strong, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis Eckstein, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald Billingsley, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Respondent-Appellant, v. Bryan M. Sagle, Petitioner-Appellee State of Ohio, Respondent-Appellant, v. Darrell H. Messina, Petitioner-Appellee State of Ohio, Respondent-Appellant, v. Raymond T. Whalen, Petitioner-Appellee State of Ohio, Respondent-Appellant, v. Michael W. Mitchell, Petitioner-Appellee State of Ohio, Respondent-Appellant, v. Wone R. Reeves, Petitioner-Appellee State of Ohio, Respondent-Appellant, v. Don E. Garvin, Petitioner-Appellee State of Ohio, Respondent-Appellant, v. Paul A. Smith, Petitioner-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dannie C. Adkins, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David G. Mavis, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Respondent-Appellant, v. Tony L. Jackson, Petitioner-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert A. Webb, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John L. Smith, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chris A. Frye, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cecily Crockett, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul A. Legins, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles Gray, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel J. Fillmore, Defendant-Appellee State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher L. Dunno, Defendant-Appellee
Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellant. Yeura R. Venters, Public Defender, Paul Skendelas and David L. Strait, for appellees.
(C.P.C. No. 05 CR 46)
(C.P.C. No. 85 CR 2500)
(C.P.C. No. 96 CR 2815)
(C.P.C. No. 92 CR 3606A)
(C.P.C. No. 95 CR 3238)
(C.P.C. No. 92 CR 3941)
(C.P.C. No. 08MS 53)
(C.P.C. No. 09 MS 137)
(C.P.C. No. 08 MS 82)
(C.P.C. No. 08 MS 250)
(C.P.C. No. 08 MS 595)
(C.P.C. No. 08 MS 106)
(C.P.C. No. 08 MS 784)
(C.P.C. No. 96 CR 3183)
(C.P.C. No. 99 CR 2912)
(C.P.C. No. 09 MS 501)
(C.P.C. No. 81 CR 4147C)
(C.P.C. No. 00 CR 5779)
(C.P.C. No. 88 CR 1086)
(C.P.C. No. 00 CR 6328)
(C.P.C. No. 90 CR 3174)
(C.P.C. No. 89 CR 328)
(C.P.C. No. 01 CR 5133)
(C.P.C. No. 02 CR 1135)
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellant.
Yeura R. Venters, Public Defender, Paul Skendelas and David L. Strait, for appellees.
APPEALS from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
TYACK, J.
{¶1} This is a consolidated appeal filed on behalf of the State of Ohio as to many individuals granted relief as a result of the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424. The State of Ohio sets forth three assignments of error:
[I.] THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF ON THE BASIS OF A PETITION THAT WAS FILED PURSUANT TO A SPECIAL STATUTORY PROCEEDING THAT HAS NOW BEEN SEVERED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY THE OHIO SUPREME COURT.
[II.] THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED IN AWARDING RELIEF BASED ON STATE V. BODYKE IN THE ABSENCE OF A PRIOR JUDICIAL CLASSIFICATION.
[III.] THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT EACH PETITIONER "IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS IN EFFECT PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2008."
{¶2} The first assignment of error has been addressed many times already by this court. See, for example, State v. Watkins, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-669, 2010-Ohio-4187 and State v. Houston, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-592, 2010-Ohio-4374. These decisions are completely consistent with the rulings of the Ohio Supreme Court in the Bodyke case and in several Supreme Court cases following Bodyke. We continue to follow the rulings of the Ohio Supreme Court, as indeed we must.
{¶3} The first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶4} The Ohio Supreme Court has also addressed the merits of the second assignment of error. See In re Sexual-Offender Reclassification Cases, 126 Ohio St.3d 322, 2010-Ohio-3753 and In re Sexual Offender Reclassification Cases, 126 Ohio St.3d 505, 2010-Ohio-4725. This court has also addressed and rejected the state's argument on this issue. See, e.g., State v. Hazlett, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-1069, 2010-Ohio-6119, ¶11 (finding that the severance remedy of Bodyke "makes no distinction between those classified judicially and those classified by operation of law"); State v. Core, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-192, 2010-Ohio-6292, ¶29 ("although appellant's prior classification (i.e., sexually oriented offender) arose by operation of law, appellant's 'reclassification made under the severed statutes must be vacated and his prior sex-offender classification reinstated.' "). We follow those cases and respect their holdings.
{¶5} The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶6} We view the merits of the third assignment of error as having been addressed by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Gingell, 128 Ohio St.3d 444, 2011- Ohio-1481 and State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374. This view has been expressed in our prior cases. See, for instance, State v. Young, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-911, 2011-Ohio-2374.
{¶7} We therefore overrule the third assignment of error.
{¶8} All three assignments of error having been overruled, the various judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.