STATE OF OHIO, Appellee v. DAVID A. KERNS, II, Appellant
C.A. No. 11CA0051-M
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA
December 30, 2011
2011-Ohio-6788
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 08 CR 0490
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
DICKINSON, J.
INTRODUCTION
{¶1} David A. Kerns II, a “sexually oriented offender,” moved to Medina County without notifying the Sheriff. He was indicted for and pleaded no contest to violating Ohio‘s Sex Offender Registration and Notification statutes, and the Medina County Common Pleas Court sentenced him to three years in prison. In imposing sentence, the trial court made a mistake regarding post-release control. Mr. Kerns did not appeal from his conviction and sentence, but eventually moved the trial court “to correct void sentence” and to allow him to withdraw his no-contest plea. He argued that his sentence was void because of the post-release control mistake and that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because the Ohio Supreme Court, in State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St. 3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, declared the reclassification procedure codified in the Adam Walsh Act unconstitutional. The trial court denied Mr. Kerns‘s request to withdraw his plea and resentenced him in order to correctly impose post-release control. Mr. Kerns has now appealed, arguing that the trial court should have allowed him to
BACKGROUND
{¶2} In 1998, Mr. Kerns pleaded guilty in the Lorain County Common Pleas Court to one count of rape and two counts of compelling prostitution. The judge who took his plea classified him as a sexually oriented offender under the then current version of Chapter 2950 of the Ohio Revised Code, which was known as Megan‘s Law. In 2007, the Ohio General Assembly amended Chapter 2950, repealing Megan‘s Law and adopting Ohio‘s version of the Adam Walsh Act. Under Ohio‘s Adam Walsh Act, offenders are classified as Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III sex offenders, depending on the offense they have been convicted of committing.
{¶3} In 2008, the Medina County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Kerns for violating Section
{¶4} In November 2010, Mr. Kerns moved the trial court “to correct void sentence” and to allow him to withdraw his plea. He argued, based on State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St. 3d 575, 2009-Ohio-1577, that his sentence was void and his motion for leave to withdraw his plea was a presentence motion under Rule 32.1 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure. He further argued that his motion for leave to withdraw should be granted based on the Ohio Supreme Court‘s determination in State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St. 3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, that the General Assembly‘s direction to the Attorney General to reclassify offenders originally classified under Megan‘s Law to one of the Adam Walsh Act tiers was unconstitutional.
{¶5} The trial court denied Mr. Kerns‘s motion for leave to withdraw his plea on March 17, 2011. By that time, the Ohio Supreme Court had decided State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St. 3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, in which it held that, for sentences imposed after the effective date of Section
{¶6} The trial court filed a Judgment Entry on April 5, 2011, by which it corrected that part of Mr. Kerns‘s sentence related to post-release control. Specifically, it wrote that, “[a]s part of this sentence, the defendant is ordered to serve a mandatory period of post release control for 5 years imposed by the Parole Board, and any prison term for violation of that post release control.” Mr. Kerns filed his notice of appeal to this Court on April 21, 2011.
THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA
{¶7} Mr. Kerns‘s first assignment of error is that the trial court incorrectly denied his motion for leave to withdraw his no-contest plea. As mentioned, the trial court denied that motion on March 17, 2011. That denial was an immediately appealable order. State v. Damron, 4th Dist. No. 10CA3375, 2011-Ohio-165, at ¶7; State v. Kramer, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-633, 2004-Ohio-2646, at ¶8. Accordingly, under Rule 4(A) of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure, Mr. Kerns had 30 days after March 17, 2011, within which to appeal that denial. Because the thirtieth day fell on a Saturday, he had until April 18, 2011. He did not file his notice of appeal, however, until April 21, 2011, 35 days after the trial court denied his motion for leave to withdraw. To the extent his appeal challenges the trial court‘s denial of his motion for leave to withdraw, therefore, it must be dismissed.
THE TRIAL COURT‘S REFUSAL TO VACATE MR. KERNS‘S CONVICTION
{¶8} Mr. Kerns‘s second assignment of error is that the trial court should have vacated his conviction because the Attorney General‘s reclassification of him to Tier III sex offender was unconstitutional. Mr. Kerns failed to raise this argument at the time the trial court originally sentenced him and failed to appeal from that sentencing. Despite the trial court‘s mistake in imposing post-release control, the rest of its judgment was and remains valid. State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St. 3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, at ¶24. Accordingly, his argument regarding the
CONCLUSION
{¶9} To the extent that Mr. Kerns has attempted to appeal from the trial court‘s denial of his motion for leave to withdraw his no contest plea, his appeal is dismissed. His second assignment of error is overruled, and the trial court‘s resentencing him to properly impose post-release control is affirmed.
Appeal dismissed in part, judgment affirmed in part.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
CLAIR E. DICKINSON
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, J. CONCURS
BELFANCE, P. J. CONCURS, SAYING:
{¶10} I concur. I write separately to note that Mr. Kerns has not sought a delayed appeal from the March 25, 2010 conviction and I do not read our opinion to imply that Mr. Kerns is foreclosed from pursuing other potential remedies concerning that conviction.
APPEARANCES:
CONRAD G. OLSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DEAN HOLMAN, Prosecuting Attorney, and MATTHEW KERN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
