2021 Ohio 4107
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Demarco Wright was indicted on multiple felonies and, per a plea agreement, pled guilty on March 27, 2019 to seven offenses (including kidnapping and gross sexual imposition) in exchange for nolle prosequi on the rest and an agreed sentence range of 9–15 years; he was sentenced to 15 years on April 17, 2019.
- S.B. 231 ("Sierah’s Law"), effective March 20, 2019, created a Violent Offender Database requiring enrollment for specified offenses (including kidnapping) and established a rebuttable presumption of a 10-year enrollment duty.
- At the plea hearing the trial court gave only a brief, general warning that Wright was very likely to be placed on the violent-offender registry; neither the court nor counsel fully explained the statutory presumption or rebuttal procedure before plea.
- At sentencing the court designated Wright a Tier I sex offender and a violent offender, read and had Wright sign the notice of duties to enroll (R.C. 2903.42(C)), but never provided the pre-sentencing advisements required by R.C. 2903.42(A)(1)(a) (presumption, right to file motion to rebut, procedure/criteria, and effects/outcomes).
- On appeal the court affirmed all convictions and sentences except it reversed only the portion imposing Violent Offender Database duties and remanded for the court to give the R.C. 2903.42(A)(1)(a) notifications, allow a motion to rebut the presumption, and re-determine the enrollment requirement.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Wright's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sierah’s Law may be applied to offenses committed before its effective date | Sierah’s Law was intended to apply retroactively and, like other registration schemes, is remedial, not punitive, so retroactive application is constitutional | Applying Sierah’s Law to pre‑effective-date offenses violates Ohio’s Retroactivity Clause | Court: Retroactive application is permissible; statute was intended to apply retroactively and is remedial, so no constitutional violation |
| Whether Wright’s plea was knowing and voluntary given limited advisement about violent‑offender duties | Court’s limited warning that enrollment was "very likely" sufficed; Wright failed to show prejudice or a viable rebuttal claim | Plea invalid because court failed to inform him of the statutory presumption, right to file a rebuttal motion, and rebuttal procedure before accepting plea | Court: Plea remains valid; incomplete advisement did not render plea involuntary because Wright showed no prejudice and record indicates no rebuttal basis |
| Whether the trial court complied with R.C. 2903.42’s procedural requirements at sentencing | State concedes court erred in failing to give pre‑sentencing advisements and agrees limited remand is proper | Court failed to comply with R.C. 2903.42(A)(1)(a) and thus defendant’s enrollment should be vacated | Court: Trial court erred by not providing R.C. 2903.42(A)(1)(a) notifications before sentencing; reversed only the violent‑offender‑duty portion and remanded to provide those notices, allow a rebuttal motion, and re‑determine enrollment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedures when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- Bielat v. Bielat, 87 Ohio St.3d 350 (Retroactivity Clause protects vested rights; two‑step retroactivity test)
- Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100 (statutes presumed prospective absent express retroactive intent)
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (analysis of registration schemes and punitive vs. remedial character)
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (focus on whether defendant understood plea consequences)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Crim.R. 11 strict/literal compliance urged)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 removes defendant’s burden to show prejudice)