State v. Worrell, 2024 Ohio 2464

In 2002, Richard K. Worrell was indicted and convicted on charges including rape, kidnapping, abduction, and felonious assault, and was classified as a sexual predator under Ohio's then-current sex offender laws (Megan’s Law).
Worrell was sentenced to 19 years in prison and challenged his convictions, sentence, and sexual predator classification on direct appeal; all were affirmed.
The Ohio Supreme Court remanded for resentencing due to changes in sentencing law, but the same sentence was reimposed and the judgment again affirmed.
In 2023, Worrell filed a motion to be removed from the sex offender registry, arguing procedural errors in his original classification—namely, a lack of a sexual predator hearing and a habitual sex offender finding.
The trial court denied his motion, and Worrell appealed this denial to the Tenth District Court of Appeals.

Issue	Worrell's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Requirement of sexual predator hearing	No hearing held or waived at original sentencing	Issue is barred by res judicata	Barred by res judicata
2. Habitual sex offender determination	No determination made by sentencing court	Could have been raised on direct appeal	Barred by res judicata
3. Void judgment exception to res judicata	Omission renders the judgment void and challengeable anytime	Court had jurisdiction; judgment not void	Exception doesn’t apply; not void
4. Removal from sex offender registry	Should be removed from registry due to above procedural errors	Law precludes reconsideration due to finality	Denied; registry obligation remains

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (Held sentencing statutes unconstitutional and affected resentencing procedures)
State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 2010) (Discussed sex offender registration reforms in Ohio)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2006) (Res judicata bars issues not raised on direct appeal)
State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285 (Ohio 2020) (A judgment is void only if the court lacked jurisdiction)