From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Young

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Richland County
Feb 22, 1999
Case No. 97 CA 64 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 22, 1999)

Opinion

Case No. 97 CA 64

February 22, 1999

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas.

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded

For Plaintiff-Appellant: JAMES J. MAYER, JR., RICHLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR; SHERYL M. GROFF, ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR; BETTY D. MONTGOMERY, ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF OHIO, DAVID M. GORMLEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.

For Defendant-Appellee: DAVID D. CARTO, TIMOTHY A. FRY, WELDON, HUSTON KEYSER.


Appellant State of Ohio is appealing the decision of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas that found R.C. Chapter 2950 violated Sections 9 and 10, Article I of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution. The following facts give rise to this appeal.

Appellee is currently incarcerated for a sexually oriented crime committed prior to the enactment of H.B. 180, subsequently codified into R.C. Chapter 2950.

After the enactment of Ohio's version of Megan's Law, in R.C. Chapter 2950, the warden of the Ohio penal institution where appellee is incarcerated recommended that appellee be classified a "sexual predator". Prior to this hearing, appellee filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of R.C. Chapter 2950. On August 19, 1997, the trial court issued a judgment entry finding R.C. Chapter 2950 is unconstitutional on ex post facto and retroactive grounds.

The State of Ohio timely filed its notice of appeal and sets forth the following assignments of error for our consideration:

I. APPLICATION OF OHIO REVISED CODE CHAPTER 2950 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

II. APPLICATION OF OHIO REVISED CODE CHAPTER 2950 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

I, II

We will address appellant's first and second assignments of error simultaneously as

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, Ohio, is hereby reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

By: Gwin. J., Wise, P. J., and Reader, V. J., concur.

--------------------

--------------------

-------------------- JUDGES

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

--------------------

--------------------

-------------------- JUDGES

Hon. John W. Wise, P. J., Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J., Hon. W. Don Reader, V. J. (Retired from the Fifth Appellate District, Sitting by Supreme Court Assignment), JUDGES.


Summaries of

State v. Young

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Richland County
Feb 22, 1999
Case No. 97 CA 64 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 22, 1999)
Case details for

State v. Young

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LARRY LEE YOUNG, Defendant-Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Richland County

Date published: Feb 22, 1999

Citations

Case No. 97 CA 64 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 22, 1999)