State v. Recker, 2014 Ohio 4993

Defendant Charles Recker pled no-contest to two counts of sexual imposition (third-degree misdemeanors) for inappropriately touching two juvenile nephews (incidents in 2010 and 2012).
Trial court sentenced Recker to 60 days jail and $500 fine on each count, suspended portions of the jail terms, and imposed five years of probation (community control) plus sex-offender treatment and assessment.
As additional conditions of community control the court ordered: no contact with the victims and to stay at least 250 feet away from them.
The court also notified Recker he must register as a Tier I sex offender for 15 years under R.C. Chapter 2950.
Recker appealed, arguing (1) the 250-foot no-contact condition was an abuse of discretion/overbroad and an unconstitutional taking of property, and (2) the 15-year registration requirement is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
The appellate court affirmed: it upheld the 250-foot restriction as reasonably related to rehabilitation and public protection, and rejected the Eighth Amendment challenge as waived for failure to raise it in the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 250-foot no-contact/proximity condition of community control was an abuse of discretion/overbroad	The State: condition reasonably relates to the crimes, public protection, and rehabilitation; proximity limitation prevents incidental contact at family events	Recker: condition is punitive, not tied to rehabilitation, restricts use of his property and movement (a taking), and is overbroad	Affirmed — court found the condition reasonably related to the offense, rehabilitation, and future criminality; not overbroad here
Whether requiring 15-year sex-offender registration is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment	The State: registration is statutory notification and court informed defendant; constitutionality was not preserved	Recker: the 15-year registration requirement is cruel and unusual punishment	Reversed as to hearing the claim — court held the challenge waived because Recker did not raise the constitutional objection in the trial court; claim not considered on appeal

State v. Geiger, 169 Ohio App.3d 374 (Ohio App. 2006) (discusses misdemeanor sentencing statutes and community-control options)
State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio 1990) (sets factors for evaluating probation/community-control conditions)
State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 2004) (describes purpose and deference in community-control sentencing)
State v. Mueller, 122 Ohio App.3d 483 (Ohio App. 1997) (distinguishes improper order transferring property from permissible residence/vacate conditions)