State v. Buttery
2017 Ohio 9113
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In juvenile court in 2011 Buttery admitted acts equivalent to two counts of gross sexual imposition; magistrate and judge entries in January 2012 classified him as a Tier I juvenile-offender registrant and notified him of Tier I registration duties.
- Buttery was committed to DYS (suspended) and placed on residential treatment/probation; placement ended in 2013 and he was placed on nonreporting probation.
- The juvenile court docket contains later entries (April–May 2015) referencing a January 13, 2012 classification and a magistrate entry that mistakenly refers to Tier III, but the record shows the January 13, 2012 documents signed by the judge reflecting Tier I classification.
- Buttery never received a completion-of-disposition (R.C. 2152.84) reclassification hearing before the juvenile court.
- He was indicted in adult court for failure to register based on the juvenile adjudication, moved to dismiss arguing no valid registration order existed and other defects, pleaded no contest, was convicted, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was dismissal appropriate because no valid juvenile order required registration? | State: the indictment properly alleged duty to register; Crim.R.12 allows pretrial challenge. | Buttery: juvenile orders invalid (judge signed magistrate decision but allegedly failed to enter separate judge’s judgment; later entries contradictory) so no valid duty to register. | Court: January 13, 2012 signed decisions were valid juvenile-court judgments classifying him Tier I; motion to dismiss was properly denied. |
| 2. Did indictment fail by not alleging Buttery was "classified" as a juvenile-offender registrant? | State: indictment alleged he failed to register when required and read into record; that allegation suffices. | Buttery: prosecution had to allege specific classification language ("classified"). | Court: Plea/admissions established he failed to register when required; indictment sufficient and conviction stands. |
| 3. Does Hand bar use of prior juvenile adjudication as basis for failure-to-register charge? | State: R.C. 2950.04 treats juvenile adjudication and classification as independent basis for registration; Hand does not bar using juvenile adjudication as an element of the offense. | Buttery: Hand forbids treating juvenile adjudications like adult convictions to impose criminal consequences. | Court: Hand does not apply; juvenile adjudication/classification is an element (not a sentence-enhancing prior conviction), so conviction allowed. |
| 4. Did later magistrate entries (April 28, 2015) improperly amend classification or eliminate the completion-of-disposition hearing requirement? | State: later entries contain a typographical Tier III reference but do not change the January 2012 Tier I classification; completion hearing entitlement remains. | Buttery: April 2015 entries increased classification and improperly withdrew the completion-of-disposition hearing. | Court: The Tier III reference was a typographical error; record confirms Tier I classification; Buttery is entitled to a completion-of-disposition hearing but that defect did not invalidate the registration requirement for the failure-to-register prosecution. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Palmer, 131 Ohio St.3d 278 (Ohio 2012) (Crim.R.12 supports pretrial dismissal where indictment alleges violations by persons not subject to statute)
- State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2016) (juvenile adjudications cannot be treated as adult convictions to enhance sentence)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact other than prior conviction that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- In re Antwon C., 182 Ohio App.3d 237 (1st Dist. 2009) (juveniles receive initial tier classification and a completion-of-disposition reclassification hearing under R.C. 2152.83–.84)