State v. Hutchins, 2021 Ohio 4524

Defendant Michael Hutchins pleaded guilty in a package deal resolving three consolidated Cuyahoga County indictments arising from offenses between Oct. 2018 and Feb. 2019, including a violent sexual assault and related theft/robbery/burglary counts.
The plea limited convictions to amended counts (several counts nolled or amended) and included an agreed aggregate sentence range; the court accepted pleas and informed Hutchins he must register as a violent offender under R.C. 2903.41-.44 (Sierah’s Law) and as a sex offender.
At sentencing the court imposed an aggregate 33-year prison term on the principal case, concurrent terms on the others, and advised Hutchins of the registration requirements; Hutchins acknowledged signing forms but did not object to registration at sentencing.
Hutchins appealed, arguing (1) retroactive application of Sierah’s Law violates the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions (Retroactivity and Ex Post Facto Clauses) and (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to registration.
After the Ohio Supreme Court issued decisions addressing Sierah’s Law, this court applied that precedent and resolved the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactive application of Sierah’s Law violates constitutional prohibitions on retroactive/ex post facto laws	State: Sierah’s Law is remedial (public‑safety), not punitive; application to pre‑enactment offenders is constitutional under Ohio precedent	Hutchins: Retroactive registration imposes punishment and therefore violates Article I, §§9–10 (U.S. Ex Post Facto) and Ohio Retroactivity Clause	Court: Followed Ohio Supreme Court holding that the statute reflects remedial intent and is not punitive in effect; no Ex Post Facto or Ohio Retroactivity violation — assignment overruled
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to violent‑offender registration	State: Objection would have been futile given statute’s constitutionality; counsel’s failure was not deficient nor prejudicial	Hutchins: Counsel substantially violated duty by not objecting to registration requirement	Court: Applying Strickland/Bradley, counsel was not deficient and no prejudice shown because objection would have failed; ineffective‑assistance claim overruled

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (establishes intent‑effects test for whether civil registries are punitive for Ex Post Facto analysis)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective‑assistance claims)
McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (right to counsel includes effective assistance)
Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (guideposts for determining whether a statutory scheme is punitive)
State v. Casalicchio, 58 Ohio St.3d 178 (1991) (discusses Mendoza‑Martinez factors in Ohio analysis)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland ineffective‑assistance framework)