State v. GallagherState v. Gallagher
For Plaintiff-Appellee JASON W. GIVEN Assistant Prosecutor Coshocton County, Ohio 318 Chestnut Street Coshocton, Ohio 43812
For Defendant-Appellant JEFFREY A. MULLEN Public Defender Coshocton County, Ohio 239 N. 4th Street Coschocton, Ohio 43812
Edwards, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Charles Gallagher, appeals a judgment of the Coshocton County Common Pleas Court dismissing his petition to contest the application of the Adam Walsh Act (AWA). Appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} In 1995, appellant was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (
{¶3} In December, 2007, appellant received a notice of new classification and registration duties from the Ohio Attorney General based on Ohio’s AWA. Appellant was reclassified as a Tier II offender. On January 25, 2008, he filed a petition in the Common Pleas Court to contest application of the act pursuant to
{¶4} Appellant assigns the following errors on appeal:
{¶5} “I. THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S PETITION IN THAT THE ADAM WALSH ACT AS RETROACTIVELY APPLIED IS AN IMPERMISSIBLE EX POST FACTO LAW
{¶6} “II. THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S PETITION AS APPLICATION OF OHIO’S AWA IN HIS CASE IS A RETROACTIVE LAW.
{¶8} “IV. THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S PETITION IN THAT APPLICATION OF THE AWA IN HIS CASE REPRESENTED A DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION.”
I, II
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the AWA as retroactively applied is an impermissible ex post facto law. In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the AWA is unconstitutional in violation of the retroactivity clause.
{¶10} This Court has held that the Act is not an impermissible ex post facto law, nor is the Act unconstitutionally retroactive. Sigler v. State of Ohio, Richland App. No. 08-CA-79, 2009-Ohio-2010. For the reasons stated in Sigler, appellant’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
III, IV
{¶11} In his third and fourth assignments of error, appellant argues that the AWA violates the separation of powers doctrine and double jeopardy.
{¶12} This Court has previously held that the Act does not violate separation of powers. In re Adrian R., Licking App. No. 08-CA-17, 2008-Ohio-6581, ¶34. We also held in In re Adrian R. that the AWA does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the law is remedial in nature and not punitive. Id. at ¶ 32-33.
{¶14} The judgment of the Coshocton County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Edwards, J.
Farmer, P.J. and
Gwin, J. concur
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
JUDGES
JAE/r0430
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant.
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
JUDGES