State v. Smithhisler
2017 Ohio 5725
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Michael R. Smithhisler, a Tier II registered sex offender, was indicted for failure to provide change of address under R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) after sheriff’s investigators found he had moved from his registered apartment and had not updated his registration in person.
- Defendant told officers he had ‘‘registered’’ the new address by phone and had previously handled moves by telephone; sheriff’s personnel testified address changes must be made in person and no call updating the 2015 address was logged.
- Defendant had a prior 2012 conviction for failure to provide change of address and had signed a written notice acknowledging the in-person update requirement.
- After a bench trial, defendant was found guilty; at sentencing the trial court imposed a mandatory three-year prison term (statutorily required given the prior 2950.05 conviction).
- Defendant appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence; (2) R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) (with its enhancement) is unconstitutional as applied (Eighth Amendment); and (3) conviction is against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by imposing the maximum sentence | State: three-year prison term was the proper mandated minimum under R.C. 2950.99 given prior conviction | Smithhisler: court imposed the maximum instead of a lesser sentence | Court: three years is the statutory mandatory minimum (not maximum); sentence affirmed |
| Whether R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) (and §2950.99 enhancement) is unconstitutional as applied under the Eighth Amendment | State: the mandatory term is not cruel and unusual; statute validly enhances sentence for repeat registration violators | Smithhisler: three-year mandatory term is disproportionate/cruel for a ‘‘minimal’’ procedural violation | Court: statute and three-year term are not grossly disproportionate or cruel and unusual; provision upheld |
| Whether the conviction is against the manifest weight or legally insufficient | State: evidence (manager, sheriff personnel, signed notice, lack of call logs) supports strict-liability offense conviction | Smithhisler: he lacked culpable intent and relied on county practice permitting phone updates | Court: failure-to-notify is strict liability; evidence supports verdict and witness credibility; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blankenship, 145 Ohio St.3d 221 (Ohio 2015) (upholding Ohio’s sex-offender registration scheme against Eighth Amendment challenge)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality; forbids only grossly disproportionate sentences)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (factors for proportionality review: gravity of offense, sentences for other crimes, and sentences in other jurisdictions)
- Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1910) (historic proportionality principle under Eighth Amendment)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinction between sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368 (Ohio 1999) (Eighth Amendment proportionality principles)