2013 Ohio 1555
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Ameem, a California sex-offender, moved to Ohio and was classified as a Megan’s Law offender; he had to register annually for ten years.
- In 2007, the attorney general reclassified Ameem as a Tier III offender under the Adam Walsh Act, requiring 90-day registrations for life.
- Ameem failed to register in July 2010 and was indicted for failing to register his address.
- Ameem moved to dismiss the indictment arguing the 2007 reclassification was unconstitutional under Bodyke.
- The trial court denied the motion; Ameem pled no contest; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the AG’s reclassification violated Bodyke | Ameem | Ameem | Invalid reclassification; Bodyke applies |
| Whether there is a in-state/out-of-state distinction in applying Bodyke | Ameem urged no valid distinction | State asserted distinction matters | No valid distinction; reclassification invalid |
| Whether Brunning preserves a viable Megan’s Law alternative for prosecution | Ameem; Brunning not controlling to allow Adam Walsh Act conviction alone | State argued Brunning allowed Adam Walsh Act prosecution if conduct also violated Megan’s Law | Brunning does not validate the Adam Walsh Act reclassification here |
| Whether indictment based on Adam Walsh Act exposure can stand if reclassification invalid | Ameem | State | Indictment invalid; reverse and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (2010) (separation-of-powers violation in AG reclassification)
- State v. Brunning, 134 Ohio St.3d 438 (2012) (prosecution possible if conduct also violates Megan’s Law)
- State v. Howard, 134 Ohio St.3d 467 (2012) (mootness of penalties for improper reclassification)
- Majewski v. State, 8th Dist. Nos. 92372 and 92400 (2010) (in-state vs out-of-state offender distinction rejected)
- State v. Ortega-Martinez, 8th Dist. No. 95656 (2011) (further rejection of in-state/out-of-state distinction)
- State v. McMillan, 8th Dist. Nos. 97475 and 97476 (2012) (rejection of differentiating in-state vs out-of-state reclassification)
- State v. Majewski, 8th Dist. Nos. 92372 and 92400 (2010) (reiteration of separation-of-powers concern)