State v. Jarvis (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 3712

In November 2018 Albert B. Jarvis IV committed offenses (kidnapping with firearm spec., disrupting public service, improperly handling a firearm in a vehicle); he pleaded guilty March 4, 2019 and was sentenced April 1, 2019.
S.B. 231 (“Sierah’s Law”), effective March 20, 2019, created a Violent Offender Database and required violent offenders to enroll annually and in person; database access limited to law enforcement.
At sentencing Jarvis objected that retroactive application of Sierah’s Law to conduct before March 20, 2019 violated Article II, Section 28 (Ohio’s Retroactivity Clause).
The trial court required registration; the Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding the law could not be applied retroactively; the Twelfth District in Hubbard held the opposite, creating a conflict certified to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio Supreme Court, following its decision in State v. Hubbard, held that applying Sierah’s Law to pre‑effective‑date conduct does not violate the Retroactivity Clause and reversed the Fifth District.
The majority reasoned Sierah’s Law is remedial/regulatory (not punitive), less burdensome than prior sex‑offender schemes, limits public access to the database, and imposes de minimis administrative duties; three justices dissented, concluding the law is punitive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether applying Sierah’s Law retroactively violates Article II, §28 (Ohio Retroactivity Clause)	Jarvis: The law is retroactive punishment that impairs vested rights and increases punishment for past conduct	State: The statute is remedial/regulatory, expressly retroactive, non‑punitive, and thus may be applied to past conduct	The Court held retroactive application does not violate Article II, §28 — the law is regulatory/remedial, not punitive, and does not retroactively increase punishment

State v. White, 972 N.E.2d 534 (distinguishing mere retroactive application from constitutionally forbidden retroactive laws)
Bielat v. Bielat, 721 N.E.2d 28 (recognizing difference between retrospective application and unconstitutional retroactivity)
State v. Williams, 952 N.E.2d 1108 (articulating two‑part test for unconstitutional retroactivity)
State v. Cook, 700 N.E.2d 570 (upholding offender‑registration schemes as remedial/regulatory)
State v. Ferguson, 896 N.E.2d 110 (treating registration duties as retroactively applied but constitutionally permissible)
State ex rel. Matz v. Brown, 525 N.E.2d 805 (no reasonable expectation that convictions will not be subject to future legislation)