Speight v. State
2011 Ohio 2933
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellees challenged their AWA reclassifications under Bodyke after Ohio Supreme Court severed AWA reclassification provisions.
- Bodyke required reinstating prior Megan’s Law classifications, overruling AG reclassifications.
- Some appellees’ Megan’s Law classifications arose by operation of law, not by judicial order.
- Trial court granted petitions and reinstated appellees to prior classifications following Bodyke.
- State appeals arguing Bodyke only applies to court-ordered classifications and that severed provisions are unconstitutional as applied decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Bodyke apply to Megan’s Law classifications arising by operation of law? | Speight argues Bodyke applies to operation‑of‑law classifications. | State contends Bodyke only covers court‑ordered classifications. | Bodyke applies; reclassifications void and prior classifications reinstated. |
| Can Bodyke remedy be applied to out‑of‑state or non‑court classifications after severance? | Appellees rely on Bodyke to reinstate pre‑AWA status. | State asserts severance should limit effect. | Remedy applies to all classifications arising under Megan’s Law, whether judicial or operation of law. |
| Was the trial court proper in applying Bodyke to reinstate prior classifications? | Petitions warranted restoration under Bodyke. | Reclassification under AWA was unconstitutional. | Trial court correctly granted petitions; judgments affirmed. |
| Do Majewski/ Hazlett/ Hayden align with or support the outcome here? | Bodyke framework governs regardless of where classifications arose. | Some districts distinguish operation‑of‑law classifications. | We align with Hazlett/ Hayden/ Majewski to apply Bodyke generally. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (2010-Ohio-2424) (severed AWA reclassification; reinstated prior classifications)
- Chojnacki v. Cordray, 126 Ohio St.3d 321 (2010-Ohio-3212) (clarified severance effects post-Bodyke)
- Hazlett v. State, 191 Ohio App.3d 105 (2010-Ohio-6119) (Bodyke applies to operation‑of‑law classifications)
- Core v. State, 2010-Ohio-6292 (2010-Ohio-6292) ( Bodyke applicability to operation‑of‑law classifications)
- Hayden v. Ohio, 2002-Ohio-4169 (2002-Ohio-4169) (due process not require hearing to designate sexually oriented offender)