State v. Bowling, 2011 Ohio 4946

Bowling, classified as a Megan’s Law predator since 1997, was indicted in 2009 for failing to notify a change of address.
He pleaded guilty to failing to provide notice as a second-degree felony after a court-clinic evaluation.
The indictment and sentencing entry erroneously referenced the wrong statutory subparts of Megan’s Law; the correct reference is to R.C. 2950.05(F)(1).
State supreme court decisions in Bodyke and Gingell limit retroactive application of Senate Bill 10’s reclassifications and notification requirements.
Bowling’s conduct of failing to notify occurred after the effective date of current penalties, but before Williams clarified retroactivity concerns.
The trial court remanded to correct the record to reflect a conviction under R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) while affirming the remainder of the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Clerical error in indictment and entry	Bowling was charged under 2950.05(F)(1) despite mislabeling.	The error did not mislead or prejudice Bowling and may be corrected nunc pro tunc.	Clerical error corrected; conviction preserved
Was the guilty plea knowingly entered given medication	Plea cannot be knowing if under medication.	Defendant understood proceedings; court found competence and proper colloquy.	Plea accepted valid; not knowingly involuntary
Effective assistance of counsel	Counsel misrepresented plea outcome as probation eligibility.	Record shows no promise of probation and defendant was satisfied with counsel.	Ineffective assistance not shown
Retroactivity of SB 10 and reclassification	SB 10 reclassification restricts conduct and retroactivity supports conviction.	Bodyke/Gingell prevent retroactive application; reclassification not unlawful here.	SB 10 retroactivity not applied to Bowling’s offense; record remanded on clerical issue
Application of current penalties (R.C. 2950.99) to post-enactment conduct	Current penalties apply to post-enactment failures to notify.	Statute retroactive concerns may apply; Williams addresses retroactivity of SB 10, not penalties.	Current R.C. 2950.99 applicable; not retroactively applied to pre-enactment acts

State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011-Ohio-229) (clerical errors may be corrected nunc pro tunc if no prejudice)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006-Ohio-5795) (principles for correcting indefinite indictment language)
State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (2010-Ohio-2424) (SB 10 retroactivity and separation-of-powers concerns curing final judgments)
State v. Gingell, 128 Ohio St.3d 444 (2011-Ohio-1481) (reclassification cannot be applied to preexisting Megan’s Law orders)
State v. Williams, Ohio St.3d (2011-Ohio-3374) (retroactivity of SB 10 violates constitutional limits on retroactive laws)
State v. Freeman, 1st Dist. No. C-100389 (2011-Ohio-4357) (penalties under 2950.99 not retroactive to acts before enactment; corrections possible)