State ex rel. Grant v. Collins (Slip Opinion)
120 N.E.3d 804
Ohio2018Background
- Scott A. Grant was convicted in 1987 of kidnapping and involuntary manslaughter (related to the 1985 killing of a 17‑year‑old) and remains incarcerated.
- In August 2016 a trial judge scheduled a Megan’s Law sexual‑predator adjudication hearing before Grant’s release.
- Grant filed a writ of prohibition in the court of appeals arguing Megan’s Law had been repealed by the Adam Walsh Act (AWA) and thus the judge lacked jurisdiction to hold the hearing.
- The Eleventh District dismissed the prohibition petition, holding the judge did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction and that Grant had an adequate remedy by appeal.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, reasoning that because the AWA cannot be applied retroactively, the repeal of Megan’s Law’s hearing provisions is ineffective as to pre‑AWA offenders, so Megan’s Law continues to govern classification and hearings for offenders like Grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grant) | Defendant's Argument (State/Judge) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacks jurisdiction to hold a Megan’s Law sexual‑predator hearing because Megan’s Law was repealed by the AWA | AWA repealed Megan’s Law; because AWA cannot be applied retroactively to him, Megan’s Law no longer governs and the court lacks jurisdiction | Repeal is ineffective as applied to pre‑AWA offenders where the AWA would be unconstitutional retroactively; Megan’s Law continues to apply and the court retains jurisdiction | Held: Court has jurisdiction; repeal of Megan’s Law’s hearing provisions is ineffective as to pre‑AWA offenders, so Megan’s Law governs |
| Whether Grant is subject to Megan’s Law classification despite never having previously been labeled a sexually oriented offender | He was never classified as a sexually oriented offender, so Megan’s Law cannot be applied to him | Conviction for a sexually oriented offense automatically classifies an offender under Megan’s Law; factual question exists whether Grant’s convictions meet that definition | Held: An offender is automatically classified on conviction; at least a factual question exists, so the judge may hold a hearing to determine classification |
| Whether prohibition is the proper remedy (i.e., Judge patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction) | Prohibition appropriate because the statutory scheme governing him was repealed | Prohibition inappropriate because jurisdiction is not clearly lacking and appellate review is available | Held: Prohibition denied; Grant has an adequate remedy by direct appeal from any classification decision |
| Whether sex‑offender classification under Megan’s Law is a part of the criminal sentence (affecting finality) | Classification is part of sentence, so finality rules bar reclassification or additional proceedings | Classification is civil/remedial consequence of conviction, not part of the criminal sentence | Held: Classification is civil/remedial; it does not affect the finality of Grant’s sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011) (AWA provisions are punitive and cannot be applied retroactively)
- State v. Brunning, 134 Ohio St.3d 438 (2012) (when a later statute is unconstitutional, repeal of the earlier law in the same enactment is ineffective; earlier registration/notification duties survive)
- State v. Howard, 134 Ohio St.3d 467 (2012) (pre‑AWA offenders remain subject to Megan’s Law scheme, including penalties)
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998) (Megan’s Law is remedial, not punitive)
- State v. Hayden, 96 Ohio St.3d 211 (2002) (an offender is automatically classified as a sexually oriented offender upon conviction)
- State v. Sullivan, 90 Ohio St.3d 502 (2001) (when an offending statute replaces and repeals an existing law, reversal of the offending statute may render the repeal ineffective)
- State v. Clayborn, 125 Ohio St.3d 450 (2010) (sex‑offender classification decisions are appealable)