State v. Wilson, 2012 Ohio 4153

Wilson appeals convictions in three cases (CR-547774, CR-550742, CR-554517) and seeks partial reversal/remand; court affirms in part, reverses in part, vacates one conviction; case discusses Adam Walsh Act (AWA) vs Megan’s Law registration duties.
In CR-547774, Wilson pled guilty to attempted failure to provide notice of change of address; predicate offense was a 2002 attempted rape; he agreed to reimburse extradition costs ($332.50).
In CR-550742, Wilson pled guilty to one count of sexual battery; State nolled remaining rape/kidnapping counts and SVP specs.
In CR-554517, Wilson pled guilty to attempted rape; court classified him as a Tier III sex offender under the AWA; SVP specs were nolled.
Prior to sentencing, court ordered psychiatric/mitigation testing; in November 2011 court imposed maximum consecutive terms (8, 5, and 3 years) for an aggregate 16 years.
Court remanded CR-547774 to vacate the failure-to-notify conviction consistent with Brunning; affirmed the rest of the judgment, with no change to the other sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the failure-to-notify conviction unlawful under the AWA given Megan’s Law predicate?	Wilson (Brunning logic) contends AWA applies only when, under Megan’s Law, reporting is applicable.	Wilson argues the AWA reporting violation is inapplicable to his Megan’s Law-based predicate.	Conviction vacated; error in applying AWA reporting requirements.
Were the maximum consecutive sentences properly imposed under the statutory standards?	Wilson challenges the necessity of maximum consecutive terms and proportionality.	State maintains proper statutory findings were made and sentences are within discretion.	Consecutive-sentence findings satisfied; sentences upheld (not contrary to law).

State v. Brunning, 8th Dist. No. 95376, 2011-Ohio-1936 (Ohio 2011) (holds AWA report violations based on inapplicable registration are unlawful when predicate was Megan’s Law)
State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424 (Ohio 2010) (reclassification under AWA unconstitutional when duty to report arose from Megan’s Law order)
State v. Gingell, 128 Ohio St.3d 444, 2011-Ohio-1481 (Ohio 2011) (reverses residency verification under heightened AWA standards)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912 (Ohio 2008) (two-step Kalish framework for reviewing felony sentences)
State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165 (Ohio 2003) (requires explicit findings on consecutive sentences and permits no magic words)
State v. Murrin, 8th Dist. No. 83714, 2004-Ohio-3962 (Ohio 2004) (no talismanic language required if record shows proper analysis)