In re D.W.
Decided: September 13, 2013
* * * * *
Timothy Young, State Public Defender, and Brooke M. Burns, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lori L. Olender, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
* * * * *
JENSEN, J.
{¶ 1} In August 1993, in Lenawee County, Michigan, D.W. enterеd an admission to three counts of criminal sexual conduct for acts that occurred when he was 15 years
{¶ 2} Michigаn records indicate D.W. was classified and began registering as a juvenile sexual offender in December 1995. In the years following D.W.‘s release from detention, Michigan‘s sex offender registration and notification laws underwent several changes. The most recent change came in 2011, when the Michigan legislature implemented its version of the federal Adam Walsh Act. Under Michigan‘s version of the act, D.W. was classified as a Tier III sex offender. As a Tier III sex offender, D.W. was required, for the rest of his life, to report in-person to the proper law-enforcement agency and verify his address. Because D.W. was adjudicated as a juvenile, however, he was not displayed on the Michigan Public Sex Offendеr Registry website.
{¶ 3} In April 2012, D.W. moved to Toledo and reported to the Lucas County Sheriff as required by law. D.W. was informed that he would be designated a Tier III juvenile sexual offender under the current version of
{¶ 4} D.W. contacted the public defender‘s office who, in turn, filed a request with the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, to stay the community
{¶ 5} In June 2012, D.W. filed a petition for declassification under the Megan‘s Law version of
{¶ 6} On September 10, 2012, the trial court issued an order holding that D.W. “is not subjеct to community notification as to his registration as a juvenile sex offender.” On September 14, 2012, a hearing was held before a magistrate on D.W.‘s motion for declassification. In a decision journalized October 1, 2012, the magistrate held, in relevant part, as follows:
[D.W.] was adjudicated a delinquent child in the State of Michigan in 1993 based upon his admission to three counts of criminal sexual conduct. As a result, upon his release from a juvenile correctional faсility in MI, he has been required to register as a sexual offender. Based upon his relocation to Toledo, Ohio in April 2012, counsel now asks this Court to declassify him as a sexual predator and terminate his requirement to register. Given that [D.W.‘s] оffense and subsequent adjudication and dispositions originated in the State of Michigan, this Court does not believe
it has jurisdiction to alter or vacate another state‘s decisions. Even assuming this Court has jurisdiction to do so, no evidencе was presented outside of proffers by [D.W.‘s] counsel that would allow this Court to have a reasonable expectation of the community‘s safety if it granted [D.W.‘s] request. [D.W.‘s] request to be declassified, therefore, is denied for good cause not shown. [D.W.] shall continue to meet the requirements of registration per his orders through the State of Michigan, albeit without community notification.
The trial court adopted the decision of the magistrate in a judgment entry journalized October 4, 2012. The judgment entry was mailed to trial counsel on October 18, 2012.
{¶ 7} On October 31, 2012, D.W. filed a motion for leave to file objections to the magistrate‘s decision and simultaneously filed his objections to the magistrate‘s decision and а motion for sex offender assessment. The trial court did not issue rulings on any of these motions.
{¶ 8} D.W. filed a notice of appeal on November 2, 2012. He raises three assignments of error for our review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I: The juvenile court erred when it found thаt it lacked jurisdiction to remove [D.W‘s] sexual predator label, as former
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III: The juvenile court erred when it declined to find [D.W.‘s] automatic classification as a sexual predator under former
First Assignment of Error
{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, D.W. asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to allow him to challenge his automatic sеxual predator classification under the Megan‘s Law version of
{¶ 10} In its brief, the state concedes that the juvenile court erred when it found that it lacked jurisdiction to modify D.W.‘s classification under former
{¶ 11} In 1996, the Ohio General Assembly enacted H.B. 182, better known as “Megan‘s Law.” Megan‘s Law established a comprehensive system of sex-offender classification and registration. The act applied retroactively, regardless of when the underlying sex offense had been committed. See State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570 (1998) (“[T]he registration and notification provisions of
{¶ 13} In State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that the retrоactive application of S.B. 10‘s registration requirements is unconstitutional. Id. at ¶ 22. See also State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753 (reclassification provisions of Ohio‘s S.B. 10 are unconstitutional). Accordingly, any classification of D.W. under S.B. 10 violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Sеe State v. Carr, 2012-Ohio-5425, 982 N.E.2d 146, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.). D.W. was adjudicated delinquent in Michigan in 1993, years before S.B. 10 took effect.
{¶ 14} Megan‘s Law, however, can be applied to D.W. because he was incarcerated for his sex offenses during the time Megan‘s Law version of
{¶ 15} Under Megan‘s Law, depending on the crime committed and the findings by the trial court at the sexual classification hearing, an offender who committed a
{¶ 16} Upon relocating to Ohio, D.W. registered his address with the Lucas County Sheriff. Despite being told he would be classified as a Tier III juvenile sexual offender under Ohio‘s Adam Walsh Act, Ohio law automatically classified D.W. as a sexual predator under Megan‘s Law version of
Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 17} In his second assignment of error, D.W. asserts the trial court abusеd its discretion when it failed to modify his sexual classification after the September 14, 2012 hearing on his petition for declassification. Essentially, D.W. makes two arguments
{¶ 18} In its brief, the state argues that a “de novo review of this case is not warranted” because the trial сourt “never heard evidence on the issue of declassification, because the Court believed it had no jurisdiction to do so.” The state asserts that the proffers given by D.W‘s trial counsel were insufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that D.W.‘s registration should be modified. We agree.
{¶ 19} After our review of the September 14, 2012 transcript of proceedings we find that D.W. was not afforded an opportunity to introduce evidence in support оf his challenge to the sexual predator classification under Megan‘s Law because the trial court believed it was without jurisdiction to entertain such a challenge. Accordingly, the first argument under D.W.‘s second assignment of error is fоund not well-taken. The second argument under D.W.‘s second assignment of error is found well-taken.
Third Assignment of Error
{¶ 20} In his third assignment of error, D.W. contends that his automatic classification as a sexual predator under former
{¶ 21} It is well established that constitutional questions are not ripe for review until the necessity for a decision arises on the record before thе court. Christensen v. Bd. of Commrs. on Grievances & Discipline, 61 Ohio St.3d 534, 535, 575 N.E.2d 790 (1991). Here, D.W. first raised his constitutional questions in his objections to the magistrate‘s decision. The trial court never issued a ruling on these questions because it never addressed the objections.
{¶ 22} We have determined that the trial court erred when it denied D.W. the opportunity to challenge the automatic sexual predator classification under Megan‘s Law. To that end, upon remand, the trial court shall address D.W.‘s challenge to the automatic sexual predator classification under former
Conclusion
{¶ 23} For the rеasons set forth above, we reverse the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Appellee is ordered to pay the costs оf this appeal pursuant to
Judgment reversed.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, P.J. _______________________________
James D. Jensen, J. JUDGE
CONCUR. _______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.