In re B.H.
2017 Ohio 6966
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2007 B.H. (born 1991) was adjudicated delinquent after pleading to two counts of gross sexual imposition for acts committed in 2005–2006; the juvenile court suspended a commitment and placed him on probation.
- On January 8, 2008 the court ordered B.H. to register under S.B. 10 (the Adam Walsh Act) as a Tier II offender.
- The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Williams later held S.B. 10 unconstitutional as applied retroactively; courts thereafter treated retroactive S.B. 10 classifications as void and required application of the law in effect when the offense occurred (Megan’s Law).
- B.H. completed probation and was discharged January 9, 2012; on January 26, 2012 the juvenile court entered a new classification under Megan’s Law as a sexually oriented offender.
- B.H. moved to vacate his sex-offender classification; the magistrate and juvenile court denied relief, and B.H. appealed to the Licking County Court of Appeals.
- The Fifth District held the original S.B. 10 classification was void, that a post-discharge reclassification was a new order entered without jurisdiction, and therefore vacated the juvenile court’s classification entered after disposition.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | B.H.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the S.B. 10 (Adam Walsh Act) Tier II classification was valid | Classification under S.B. 10 was proper when entered | S.B. 10 cannot be applied retroactively to offenses committed before its enactment | S.B. 10 classification was void under Williams because offenses predated S.B. 10 |
| Whether Megan’s Law automatic sexually oriented offender classification (Hayden) applied to juveniles without a hearing | Court may apply Megan’s Law classification as a matter of law without a hearing | Hayden applies only to adults; juveniles require the two-step R.C. 2152/2950 process and a hearing | Hayden does not apply to juveniles; juvenile courts must follow the juvenile-specific two-step process and hold a hearing |
| Whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction to impose a new classification after B.H. completed his disposition | Court retained authority to address registration status and classify under Megan’s Law after Williams remedy | Court lost jurisdiction upon completion/discharge of probation; cannot impose new classification after disposition satisfied | Juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to impose a new classification after B.H. was discharged; the post-disposition classification is void |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (holds retroactive application of S.B. 10 violates Ohio Constitution)
- State v. Hayden, 96 Ohio St.3d 211 (adult offenders are automatically classified as sexually oriented offenders upon conviction)
- State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (addresses limits on reclassification authority under S.B. 10)
- In re Cross, 96 Ohio St.3d 328 (juvenile court loses jurisdiction when probation/commitment is terminated)
- State ex rel. Jean-Baptiste v. Kirsch, 134 Ohio St.3d 421 (juvenile court lacks jurisdiction to classify once disposition fully satisfied or child turns 21)