State v. Salser
2014 Ohio 87
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Michael D. Salser was indicted in 2007 on multiple counts related to pandering obscenity involving a minor, dissemination of matter harmful to juveniles, importuning, and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor; he pleaded guilty in 2008 to selected counts and received a seven-year sentence.
- At sentencing (March 2008) the trial court classified Salser as a Tier II sex offender under 2007 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10 (the Adam Walsh Act, S.B. 10).
- In August 2012 Salser filed a pro se "motion to correct registration and classification," arguing his S.B. 10 classification was applied retroactively to offenses committed in 2007 and therefore violated Ohio's Retroactivity Clause as articulated in State v. Williams.
- The state opposed, arguing Salser waived the challenge by not raising it on direct appeal in 2008 and that res judicata or post-conviction time limits barred relief.
- The trial court denied the motion without explanation; on appeal the Tenth District reviewed whether retroactive classification under S.B. 10 was erroneous and what remedy was required.
- The court concluded S.B. 10 could not be applied to offenses committed before its effective date, vacated the Tier II classification, and remanded for a hearing under the pre–S.B. 10 law in effect when the offenses occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly applied S.B. 10 retroactively to classify Salser as a Tier II offender for 2007 offenses | State: Salser waived the challenge by not raising it in 2008; res judicata and post-conviction limitations bar relief | Salser: Williams v. Ohio bars retroactive application of S.B. 10; classification is void and must be corrected | Court: Retroactive application of S.B. 10 to pre-enactment offenses violates Ohio Constitution (Williams); classification vacated and remanded for correct classification |
| Whether procedural defenses (waiver/res judicata/untimeliness) prevent relief | State: Waiver/res judicata/time limits preclude Salser's motion | Salser: Williams announced new recognition that S.B. 10 is punitive when applied retroactively; relief is not barred | Court: Procedural defenses do not preclude relief because Williams recognized the classification was punitive and retroactive application is unconstitutional; trial court may correct a void classification |
| Proper remedy when S.B. 10 was applied retroactively | State: Relief should be barred procedurally | Salser: Trial court should vacate the invalid classification and apply pre–S.B. 10 law | Court: Vacate the S.B. 10 classification and remand for a classification hearing under the law in effect when the offense occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (Sup. Ct. Ohio 2011) (holding S.B. 10 violates Ohio Constitution's prohibition on retroactive laws as applied to defendants who committed offenses before its enactment)
- State v. Palmer, 131 Ohio St.3d 278 (Sup. Ct. Ohio 2012) (affirming that the Retroactivity Clause forbids applying the Adam Walsh Act to pre-enactment offenses)
- State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 (Sup. Ct. Ohio 2009) (when a court imposes a sentence it lacked authority to impose, the sentence must be vacated and the defendant resentenced)
- In re Bruce S., 134 Ohio St.3d 477 (Sup. Ct. Ohio 2012) (discussing effective date of S.B. 10 classification and registration provisions)
- State v. Lees, 135 Ohio St.3d 136 (Sup. Ct. Ohio 2012) (remanding for classification hearing under pre–S.B. 10 law despite lack of direct appeal)