State v. Montgomery
2012 Ohio 391
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Lawrence Montgomery was convicted of rape in 1987 and released in 2004; he was adjudicated as a sexually oriented offender under Megan’s Law and required to register annually for ten years.
- In 2007 Ohio adopted the Adam Walsh Act (AWA); SB 10 in 2007 set a three-tier system and new 90-day verification requirements under the AWA, effective 2008.
- Appellant was automatically reclassified under the AWA as a Tier II/III offender and notified in 2007, with a 2008 effective date, leading to 90-day address verifications for life.
- In 2009 Montgomery was convicted of failing to verify his address under the AWA and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment; he did not appeal.
- In 2010 the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Bodyke, holding parts of the AWA unconstitutional for separation-of-powers reasons and severing those provisions from Megan’s Law; later Williams held the AWA is retroactively unconstitutional for offenders who committed offenses before enactment.
- Montgomery filed a November 16, 2010 motion to vacate his sentence; the trial court denied it on December 29, 2010, ruling Bodyke did not apply because his case was not pending on direct appeal at Bodyke’s release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bodyke applies to Montgomery’s case and vacates his sentence. | Montgomery argues Bodyke applies to all reclassified offenders. | State contends Bodyke applies only to cases pending on Bodyke’s announcement. | Bodyke applies; sentence vacated. |
| Whether the AWA is retroactive as to Montgomery. | Bodyke/Williams require retroactive application for pre-enactment offenses. | State argues proper application under AWA as reclassification. | AWA is unconstitutional retroactively for pre-enactment offenses. |
| Nature of the relief: Civ.R. 60(B)/Crim.R. 32.1 or postconviction—how to characterize the motion. | Motion to vacate should be treated as Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence motion to withdraw plea. | Procedural bars apply; Civ.R. 60(B) or Crim.R. 35/2953.21 issues. | Motion analyzed as Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence withdrawal; relief granted. |
| Remedy: vacate conviction and sentence or remand for new sentencing. | Bodyke/Williams require removal of void sentence. | Remand unnecessary if only reclassification issue. | Vacate guilty plea, conviction, and sentence; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (2010) (unconstitutional AWA provisions; separation of powers; severance of provisions from Megan's Law)
- State v. Gingell, 128 Ohio St.3d 444 (2011) (AWA retroactivity/separation- of-powers analysis in reclassification context)
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011) (AWA retroactivity; prohibition on applying to pre-enactment offenses)
- State v. Pritchett, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24183, 2011-Ohio-5978 (2011) (void sentence under AWA; remand for new sentencing hearing)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (postconviction relief/withdrawal merits guidance; void sentence context)