State v. Armor
2017 Ohio 396
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John C. Armor was convicted in the 1980s of multiple crimes including rapes and aggravated burglaries (offenses in 1982 and 1986–87); he pleaded guilty in consolidated 1987 cases and received an aggregate sentence; he remains incarcerated.
- The 1987 convictions involved multiple victims and occurred while Armor was on parole from 1982 convictions.
- The trial court repeatedly continued a sexual-predator (H.B. 180 / former R.C. 2950.09) hearing from 2001 through 2015; the classification hearing was held June 22, 2016.
- The State introduced court records from the 1982 and 1987 cases; Armor (through original trial counsel) did not contest the exhibits or present additional evidence or experts.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Armor qualified as a sexual predator, citing his criminal history, multiple sexual offenses, multiple victims, and threats of violence. Armor timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Armor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Notice of hearing | Notice was adequate; counsel was appointed and hearing proceeded with defense present | Lack of proper notice; denial of opportunity to present/prepare | Court: No plain error; appointment and defense presence waived notice objection; assignment overruled |
| 2. Validity of sexual-predator classification | Record (convictions, multiple victims, parole status) supports likely recidivism under former R.C. 2950.09 | Classification improper because statute inapplicable if sentence served / timing anomaly (Taylor) | Court: Classification supported by clear and convincing evidence; Taylor registration issue irrelevant to classification; assignment overruled |
| 3. Sufficiency / weight of evidence | Court relied on statutory factors (criminal history; multiple victims); even few factors may suffice | Evidence insufficient; hearing did not follow Eppinger model; lack of expert or detailed record | Court: Enough competent, credible evidence to satisfy clear and convincing standard; assignment overruled |
| 4. Ineffective assistance of counsel at classification hearing | (Implicit) counsel performed adequately by participating and arguing statutory inapplicability | Counsel failed to investigate/present mitigating evidence or follow Eppinger model; prejudice resulted | Court: No showing of what additional investigation would have produced or reasonable probability of different outcome; Strickland not satisfied; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Gowdy v. State, 88 Ohio St.3d 387 (Ohio 2000) (notice required for sexual-offender classification hearings; plain-error limited to exceptional circumstances)
- Eppinger v. Ohio, 91 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 2001) (model procedures for sexual-offender classification hearings; when expert or detailed record may be required)
- State v. Taylor, 100 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 2003) (distinguishing adjudication as sexual predator from duty to register under R.C. scheme)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (civil plain-error standard: exceptional circumstances required)
- State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (Ohio 2007) (appellate review standard for sexual-predator determinations; manifest-weight / civil standard)