2015 Ohio 4846
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Todd Stowers was convicted of attempted rape (1978), later paroled and re-incarcerated on other offenses; he was ultimately released from prison on December 3, 1997.
- Ohio’s Megan’s Law (former R.C. Chapter 2950) effective July 1, 1997, required certain offenders released on or after that date to register as sex offenders; Stowers was adjudicated a sexual predator and ordered to register every 90 days for life.
- In 2005 State v. Champion held that persons who completed their sexually oriented offense sentence before July 1, 1997, were not subject to registration under former R.C. 2950.04(A)(1)(a).
- In 2006 Stowers moved to set aside the registration order citing Champion; the trial court denied the motion and Stowers did not appeal that denial.
- In 2014 Stowers was indicted for failing to notify an address change; he moved to dismiss, arguing the registration order was void under Champion because his sentence for the rape ended before July 1, 1997.
- The trial court granted dismissal and ordered removal from the registry; the state appealed, arguing res judicata barred Stowers from relitigating the registration issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stowers can collaterally attack the registration order as void for lack of jurisdiction | State: res judicata bars relitigation because Stowers raised the issue in 2006 and did not appeal | Stowers: the registration order was void ab initio under Champion and therefore subject to collateral attack at any time | Court: res judicata applies; because Stowers fully litigated the jurisdictional issue in 2006 and did not appeal, he is barred from raising it again |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Champion, 106 Ohio St.3d 120 (2005) (establishes that persons who completed their sex-offense sentence before July 1, 1997, are not subject to registration under former R.C. 2950.04(A)(1)(a))
- Claxton v. Simons, 174 Ohio St. 333 (1963) (a party who litigates and loses a claim that a judgment is void is bound by that determination and must appeal to challenge it)
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (a void judgment may be attacked at any time, but such attacks are limited by the preclusive effect of prior litigation)
- State ex rel. Arcadia Acres v. Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Servs., 123 Ohio St.3d 54 (2009) (once a jurisdictional issue is fully litigated, the determination is res judicata and can only be attacked by direct appeal)
- State v. Wozniak, 172 Ohio St. 517 (1961) (discusses limits on collateral attacks to judgments alleged to be void)