State v. Williams, 2011 Ohio 6763

Williams was convicted in 2002 of importuning, a felony of the fourth degree, and classified as a sexually oriented offender under Megan's Law.
When Megan's Law was repealed in 2008, the AWA reclassified Williams as a Tier I sex offender.
In February 2011, Williams was indicted for failure to provide a change of address under the AWA after investigators found he no longer lived at his registered address.
On May 3, 2011, Williams moved to dismiss the indictment citing Bodyke and Gingell; the trial court dismissed the indictment.
The court held that an unlawful AWA reclassification cannot support a failure-to-report charge, and that the indictment was predicated on an unlawful reclassification.
The court affirmed the dismissal, distinguishing Caldwell and Ortega-Martinez and relying on prior Ohio authority that unlawful reclassification cannot serve as the predicate for the offense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May the indictment be dismissed due to unlawful AWA reclassification?	Williams	State	Dismissal proper; reclassification unlawful cannot support the charge
Is the indictment facially valid notwithstanding the reclassification issue?	State	Williams	Indictment facial validity rejected; dismissal affirmed

State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (2010-Ohio-2424) (AWA reclassification unlawful if preexisting Megan's Law duty existed)
State v. Gingell, 128 Ohio St.3d 444 (2011-Ohio-1481) (unlawful AWA reporting cannot support reporting charge)
State v. Caldwell, 8th Dist. No. 92219 (2009-Ohio-4881) (distinguish from improper predication; state must prove offense)
State v. Ortega-Martinez, Cuyahoga App. No. 95656 (2011-Ohio-2540) (unlawful AWA reclassification cannot predicate failure-to-verify)
State v. Smith, 8th Dist. No. 92550 (2010-Ohio-2880) (reclassification issue to be resolved before trial)
State v. Page, 8th Dist. No. 94369 (2011-Ohio-83) (similarly regards unlawful reclassification)