Lingle v. State
2019 Ohio 2928
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Harmon Lingle and Mark Grosser are Ohio residents who previously were convicted in Florida of sexually‑oriented offenses and registered there as sex offenders; the Ohio Attorney General later classified each as a "sexual predator" under former R.C. Chapter 2950.
- Both crimes occurred before the Adam Walsh Act (AWA) took effect (Jan. 1, 2008), so the pre‑AWA version of R.C. Chapter 2950 (Megan's Law) governs their status.
- Under former R.C. 2950.09(A), an out‑of‑state offender required to register for life in the convicting jurisdiction is automatically classified in Ohio as a sexual predator, but may challenge that classification under R.C. 2950.09(F).
- Appellees filed declaratory actions arguing they either were misclassified or are entitled to a hearing under R.C. 2950.09(F) to prove by clear and convincing evidence they are not likely to reoffend.
- The trial court granted the motions in part, concluding appellees were entitled to an evidentiary hearing (relying on State v. Pasqua). The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2950.09(F) entitles an out‑of‑state offender to an evidentiary hearing to prove low recidivism risk | Lingle/Grosser: R.C. 2950.09(F) allows petitioners to obtain a hearing to prove by clear and convincing evidence they are unlikely to commit future sexually‑oriented offenses (Pasqua) | State: R.C. 2950.09(F) permits only a showing that the other jurisdiction’s lifetime registration requirement is not "substantially similar" to an Ohio sexual predator classification; it does not grant a B‑hearing on recidivism risk | The court reversed the trial court: R.C. 2950.09(F) does not provide the R.C. 2950.09(B)/(C) classification hearing or a recidivism‑focused evidentiary hearing; the statute requires only proof that the other jurisdiction’s lifetime registration is not substantially similar to Ohio’s sexual predator classification; remanded for proceedings consistent with that interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011) (AWA retroactivity holding affecting classification schemes)
- State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (2010) (severance of AWA reclassification provisions and reinstatement of pre‑AWA orders)
- State v. Howard, 134 Ohio St.3d 467 (2012) (pre‑AWA Megan's Law governs offenders convicted before AWA effective date)
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998) (describing Megan's Law classification system and consequences)
- State v. Pasqua, 157 Ohio App.3d 427 (1st Dist. 2004) (held out‑of‑state petitioners entitled to hearing on likelihood of reoffending; court here rejects Pasqua’s expansion of R.C. 2950.09(F))