THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BODYKE ET AL., APPELLANTS.
No. 2008-2502
Supreme Court of Ohio
August 17, 2010
126 Ohio St.3d 1235, 2010-Ohio-3737
Submitted July 6, 2010
{¶ 2} Appellee, state of Ohio, and amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General have filed a joint motion for reconsideration and/or clarification.
{¶ 3} The motion for reconsideration and/or clarification is denied.
BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘CONNOR, and LANZINGER, JJ., concur.
O‘DONNELL and CUPP, JJ., dissent.
CUPP, J., dissenting.
{¶ 4} I would grant the state‘s motion for clarification of this court‘s decision in State v. Bodyke, to clarify that Bodyke does not apply to cases in which there is no prior court order classifying the defendant into a sex-offender category that existed under Megan‘s Law. The majority decision in Bodyke states that it was based on the concern that
{¶ 5} For these reasons, I dissent from the majority‘s decision to deny the motion for reconsideration and/or clarification.
O‘DONNELL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
Russell V. Leffler, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Gamso, Helmick & Hoolahan and Jeffrey M. Gamso; and Hiltz, Wiedemann, Allton & Koch Co., L.P.A., and John D. Allton, for appellants.
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor General, Alexandra T. Schimmer, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, David M. Lieberman, Deputy Solicitor, Christopher P. Conomy, Assistant Solicitor, and James A. Hogan, Assistant Attorney General, for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General.
