State v. Ditzler, 2013 Ohio 4969

Kenneth Ditzler was convicted by a jury in 2000 of multiple offenses including rape, gross sexual imposition, and a sexually violent predator specification.
Ditzler appealed; the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions in 2001 and he did not seek further review in the Ohio Supreme Court.
In December 2012, over eleven years later, Ditzler moved in the trial court to vacate the sexually violent predator specification as void, arguing Smith (2004) required a prior conviction before the specification could attach.
The State opposed; the trial court denied the motion on December 21, 2012.
Ditzler appealed the denial; the Ninth District Court of Appeals considered whether Smith applied retroactively to his final conviction.
The court affirmed, holding Smith did not apply retroactively to convictions that were final before Smith was announced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sexually violent predator specification was void under State v. Smith	Ditzler: Smith requires the sexually violent offense conviction to precede the indictment/specification, and the State never showed a prior conviction, so the specification is void	State: Smith cannot be applied retroactively to cases already final; Ditzler's conviction became final in 2001	Court held Smith does not apply retroactively; Ditzler's motion to vacate was properly denied

State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St.3d 106 (2004) (holds a conviction cannot support a sexually violent predator specification if the conduct and the specification are charged in the same indictment)
Ali v. State, 104 Ohio St.3d 328 (2004) (new judicial rulings apply only to cases pending on the announcement date; not to final convictions)
State v. Evans, 32 Ohio St.2d 185 (1972) (principle that judicial decisions do not apply retroactively to final convictions)