State v. Weaver, 2011 Ohio 6402

Weaver was convicted of rape (first-degree felony) in 2007 and sentenced to eight years.
At sentencing, the court classified Weaver as a sexual predator under SB 5 with reporting duties.
An August 2007 judgment expressly designated Weaver as a sexual predator and noted SB 10 Tier III implications.
In 2011 Weaver filed a post-conviction motion seeking reclassification under SB 5 and removal of Tier III status.
The trial court denied relief, citing Bodyke as controlling for court-imposed reclassification.
The court of appeals modified the judgment, vacating Tier III status and reinstating SB 5 predator designation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Bodyke govern judicial reclassification here?	Weaver argues Bodyke invalidates court reclassification.	State contends Bodyke does not affect court reclassification under SB 5.	Bodyke not dispositive; but Williams controls retroactivity concerns.
Is SB 10 retroactive as applied to Weaver?	Weaver should remain under SB 5 due to retroactivity ruling.	State maintains SB 10 applies to Weaver as amended retroactively.	Williams holds SB 10 is punitive and retroactive application violates the constitution; apply SB 5.
What is Weaver’s proper offender classification after Williams?	Weaver should be classified as SB 5 predator, not Tier III.	State urged retention of Tier III classification.	Reclassification to Tier III vacated; reinstates SB 5 predator status with corresponding duties.
Does this relief require remand for a new classification hearing?	Relief could require remand under Williams.	No remand necessary since SB 5 determination existed.	No remand required; modify judgment to reflect SB 5 predator status.

State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (2010-Ohio-2424) (reclassification statutes violate separation of powers)
State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011-Ohio-3374) (SB 10 punitive; retroactivity violates constitution)