State v. Gregoire, 2020 Ohio 415

Christopher Gregoire was indicted in Oct. 2015 for OVI (fourth-degree felony) after having three prior OVI convictions within six years; he pled guilty and was sentenced Jan.–Feb. 2016.
The trial court suspended his driver’s license for six years (to Feb. 16, 2022).
At the time of his conviction, R.C. 4510.13(A)(3) barred limited driving privileges if the offender had three or more OVI convictions within the preceding six years.
H.B. 388 (effective Apr. 6, 2017) amended R.C. 4510.13(A)(3) to extend the look‑back period from six years to ten years.
In Mar. 2019 Gregoire moved for limited driving privileges, arguing the amended statute could not be applied retroactively and that retroactive application would violate the Ex Post Facto clause.
The trial court applied the ten‑year look‑back (finding the amendment remedial and citing State v. Redman) and denied relief; the appellate court reversed, holding the amendment was not expressly made retroactive and therefore applies only prospectively (six‑year look‑back).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amended R.C. 4510.13(A)(3) was made retroactive by the General Assembly	Gregoire: the legislature did not clearly proclaim retroactivity; presumption favors prospective application	State: statute lacks language limiting prospective application and is remedial, so applying it is permissible	Court: Legislature did not clearly proclaim retroactivity; statute applies prospectively; trial court erred in using 10‑year look‑back
Whether retroactive application would violate Ex Post Facto / impair vested rights	Gregoire: retroactive ten‑year look‑back would have unconstitutional ex post facto effect	State: statute is remedial and does not impair vested rights; intent‑effects test supports constitutionality	Court: did not reach ex post facto question because statute was not expressly retroactive; analysis ends at express‑retroactivity step

State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (establishing two‑step test for retroactivity and presumption of prospective application)
Hyle v. Porter, 117 Ohio St.3d 165 (clarifying that courts first ask whether legislature expressly intended retroactivity)
Bielat v. Bielat, 87 Ohio St.3d 350 (example of statute with explicit retroactive language)
State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (discussing remedial vs. substantive effects where statute is expressly retroactive)
Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100 (example of clear legislative retroactivity language)
State v. Redman, 163 Ohio App.3d 686 (12th Dist.) (distinguished by appellate court; Redman involved an expressly retroactive provision)
State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178 (noting legislature can and has used explicit retrospective language)