State v. Raber
134 Ohio St. 3d 350
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Raber pleaded guilty to one count of sexual imposition (a misdemeanor) in 2008 and was sentenced without a sex-offender registration notice.
- At sentencing, the court did not determine lack of consent nor order Raber to register, implicitly treating the conduct as consensual for purposes of registration.
- In 2009–2010, after more than ten months post-judgment, a new evidentiary process occurred, culminating in a finding of nonconsent and a Tier I registration classification.
- Raber was notified of the Tier I classification and judgment was journalized more than 14 months after the original sentencing.
- The enactment of S.B. 10 in 2008 created a three-tier system and changed registration duties; some aspects were deemed punitive by the Supreme Court in Williams.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals upheld that the trial court could classify Raber 14 months after the initial judgment, which the lead opinion later reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court have authority to classify Raber as a sex offender more than a year after judgment? | Raber; final judgment in 2008 allowed reopening for classification. | State; could correct a clerical omission and classify under SB 10. | No authority to reopen; final judgment stands. |
| Does SB 10’s punitive nature affect finality and double jeopardy analyses? | Classification is double jeopardy-prohibited after final sentence. | Registration is a valid correction or update under SB 10. | SB 10 is punitive; reopening after final judgment violates double jeopardy. |
| Was there a clerical error justifying a post-judgment classification? | Omission to classify was clerical and needed correction. | No clerical error; issue involved legal decision about consent. | No clerical error; not a valid basis to modify judgment. |
| Does due process or double jeopardy bar attempt to classify Raber after final judgment? | Final judgment should have allowed correction; due process supports updated classification. | Classification could be imposed consistent with SB 10's framework. | Due process and double jeopardy protections bar post-judgment classification. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2011) (SB 10 deemed punitive; registration not purely civil)
- In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012) (SB 10 faces constitutional issues for juveniles)
- State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008) (registration remained civil/regulatory)
- State v. White, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997) (presumption of regularity in judgments)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008) (finality and void judgments; limits on reopening)