State v. Smith
68 N.E.3d 114
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- William Smith was convicted in 2004 in Hamilton County Municipal Court of two counts of criminal child enticement under R.C. 2905.05(A) (2001 version).
- He completed his sentences and was released in August 2007; he did not pursue a direct appeal at that time.
- Under the 2003 version of Megan’s Law, Smith was required to register as a child-victim-oriented offender for ten years after release, creating a continuing collateral disability.
- In 2015 Smith moved in municipal court to vacate his 2004 convictions based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in State v. Romage, which held R.C. 2905.05(A) unconstitutionally overbroad.
- The municipal court denied Smith’s motions; Smith appealed. The State argued the appeals were moot because Smith had completed his sentence and his convictions were final.
- The First District considered mootness, the proper procedural vehicle for relief, whether Romage announced a new rule, and whether that rule applies retroactively to vacate Smith’s convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Smith's appeals moot because he completed his sentence? | State: Yes — misdemeanor appeal is moot absent collateral consequences. | Smith: No — Megan’s Law registration created a collateral disability. | Not moot: registration duty under R.C. 2950 created a collateral disability, so appeals are justiciable. |
| What procedural vehicle allows relief from old municipal convictions after Romage? | State: Romage applies only on direct appeal; older convictions final — no relief. | Smith: Convictions are void under Romage; court always may correct void judgments. | Court: Although not habeas or R.C. 2953.21 postconviction, courts have jurisdiction to vacate void judgments. |
| Did Romage announce a new rule of law? | State: Romage does not retroactively apply to final convictions. | Smith: Romage announced a new substantive rule that the statute is overbroad and void. | Romage announced a new rule; it was not dictated by prior precedent. |
| Should the new rule apply retroactively to final convictions? | State: No retroactivity for final convictions. | Smith: Substantive rule (declaring a statute void) must apply retroactively. | Yes: Romage announced a substantive rule placing certain conduct beyond criminal law; it must be applied retroactively, so convictions are void. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Romage, 138 Ohio St.3d 390 (Ohio 2014) (Ohio Supreme Court held R.C. 2905.05(A) unconstitutionally overbroad)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (new substantive rules of constitutional law must be applied retroactively)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (default rule barring retroactive application of new rules to final convictions)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1998) (substantive rules correct convictions for acts that are not criminal)
- Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1880) (an unconstitutional law is void and convictions under it are void)
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (Ohio 1998) (registration requirements under Megan’s Law are collateral to sentence)