2022 Ohio 3389
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2008 Ramsey was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and was required to register as a sex offender for 25 years.
- Fayette County sheriff's Sgt. Fausnaugh served Ramsey an eviction notice on Oct. 12, 2021, and reminded him of the duty to notify the sheriff of any address change (or, if homeless, to report intended places to stay/sign in).
- Eviction was executed Oct. 22, 2021; Ramsey stayed with many belongings in a shared driveway for several days, then relocated to an address in Bloomingburg around Oct. 24–25; he did not notify the sheriff.
- A warrant issued Oct. 28 for failure to notify; Ramsey was arrested and tried in a bench trial where he stipulated to prior convictions.
- Trial court convicted Ramsey of violating R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) (failure to notify change of address) and sentenced him to 24 months; Ramsey appealed raising four assignments of error (mens rea/due process, sufficiency/manifest weight and impossibility, and ineffective assistance).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Ramsey's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) requires a mens rea or is strict liability | Statute reflects plain legislative intent to impose strict liability for registration/notice duties | Statute does not specify culpability; where unspecified recklessness should be required under R.C. 2901.21(C) and due process | Court held the statute imposes strict liability (mens rea not required) and overruled Ramsey's challenge |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Ramsey failed to notify the sheriff of address changes | Testimony showed eviction, knowledge of address change, subsequent relocation, and failure to notify | Argued he did not change address while sitting in driveway and thus duty did not trigger | Court found evidence sufficient to prove duty and failure to notify; conviction sustained |
| Whether conviction was against manifest weight / whether impossibility defense applied | Trial court was entitled to disbelieve Ramsey; evidence did not satisfy statutory impossibility defense | Argued trial court impliedly found impossibility (no duty) or that Bloomingburg was not a residence so no duty | Court found no finding that impossibility was satisfied; weight of evidence supports conviction |
| Ineffective assistance for not moving for acquittal at close of state's case | Counsel's tactical choice and a post-state Crim.R.29 motion would have been futile given the evidence | Counsel was deficient for not moving earlier, causing prejudice | Court held counsel’s performance was not deficient; no prejudice; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998) (holding failure to register under R.C. 2950 statutes may be punished without a scienter requirement)
- State v. Moody, 104 Ohio St.3d 244 (2004) (strict liability requires plain legislative intent)
- State v. Williams, 114 Ohio St.3d 103 (2007) (statutory amendments reflect legislative concern for public safety in sex-offender laws)
- State v. Clay, 120 Ohio St.3d 528 (2008) (factors for determining legislative intent regarding culpability)
- State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St.3d 254 (2002) (considerations in assessing mens rea requirements)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Hayden, 96 Ohio St.3d 211 (2002) (legislative purpose of sex-offender statutes)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)