State v. Lewis, 2019 Ohio 4193

Cody M. Lewis was charged with three counts of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor (R.C. 2907.04(B)(2)), each a first‑degree misdemeanor.
Lewis waived presentation of facts and pled no contest; the state nonetheless recited the facts on the record.
The state’s account described multiple incidents in which Lewis entered the victim’s bedroom, kissed, fondled, and engaged in non‑consensual sexual acts; the victim experienced serious emotional harm.
The municipal court sentenced Lewis to jail and fines and ordered him to register as a Tier I sexual offender under R.C. 2950.01(E)(1)(b).
On appeal Lewis argued the court erred because the misdemeanor’s elements do not include lack of consent and the court could not rely on consent to impose Tier I registration.
The trial court, as trier of fact, relied on the state’s explanation (which Lewis did not contest) and the appellate court affirmed the Tier I classification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a conviction for first‑degree misdemeanor Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor can support Tier I registration under R.C. 2950.01(E)(1)(b)	State: The facts established the victim did not consent and the age relationship supports Tier I, and the court may make that special finding.	Lewis: The misdemeanor elements don’t include lack of consent, so consent cannot be used to trigger Tier I registration.	Court: Consent (or lack thereof) is a special factual finding for classification; the trial court, as fact‑finder, could find lack of consent from the unobjected‑to factual recitation and properly imposed Tier I registration.

United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) (finding that fact findings that increase authorized punishment require jury and proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Smith, 121 Ohio St.3d 409 (2009) (value or other facts can be special findings enhancing punishment and must be submitted to the fact‑finder)
State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011) (tier classification is based on the offense and judge lacks discretion to alter classification)
State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 513 (2000) (R.C. Chapter 2950 registration and notification requirements are punitive)
State v. Fairbanks, 117 Ohio St.3d 543 (2008) (special enhancement findings are factual questions analogous to conditions of the offense)
State v. Waddell, 71 Ohio St.3d 630 (1995) (no‑contest misdemeanor pleas constitute stipulation allowing judge to find guilt from explanation of circumstances)