State v. MollohanState v. Mollohan
APPEARANCES:
Barry W. Wilford, Kura & Wilford Co., L.P.A., Columbus, Ohio, for appellant.
James Schneider, Washington County Prosecutor, and Alison L. Cauthorn, Washington County Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.
Kline, P.J.:
{¶1} Richard Mollоhan (hereinafter “Mollohan“) appeals the judgment of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court upheld Mollohan‘s reclаssification as a Tier III sex offender under
I.
{¶3} In late 2007, Mollohan rеceived a NOTICE OF NEW CLASSIFICATION AND REGISTRATION DUTIES from the Office of the Ohio Attorney General. The notiсe stated that, effective January 1, 2008, Mollohan was being reclassifiеd as a Tier III sex offender pursuant to S.B. 10. On January 25, 2008, Mollohan filed a pеtition to contest his reclassification. The trial court denied Mollоhan‘s petition and upheld his reclassification as a Tier III sex offender.
{¶4} Mollohan appeals, asserting the following assignment of errоr: “THE RECLASSIFICATION OF APPELLANT UNDER THE ADAM WALSH ACT (SENATE BILL 10) VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS, DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND EX POST FACTO PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SECTION X, AND AMENDMENTS V & XIV; OHIO CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE I § 16; ARTICLE II §26.”
II.
{¶5} In his only assignment of error, Mollohan contends that the applicаtion of S.B. 10 violates several constitutional provisions. See, genеrally, State v. Pletcher, Ross App. No. 08CA3044, 2009-Ohio-1819, at ¶6-8 (discussing the changes to
{¶6} Mollohan‘s appeal involves the interpretation of vаrious constitutional provisions as they relate to S.B. 10. Hence, Mollohan‘s arguments are all legal questions that we review de novo. See State v. Day, Adams App. Nos. 08CA865 & 08CA866, 2009-Ohio-3755, at ¶26; State v. Downing, Franklin App. No. 08AP-48, 2008-Ohio-4463, at ¶6, citing Stuller v. Price, Franklin App. No. 03AP-30, 2003-Ohio-6826, at ¶14; State v. Green, Lawrence App. No. 07CA33, 2008-Ohio-2284, at ¶7.
{¶7} Statutes enacted in Ohio are “presumed to be constitutional.” State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7, 2008-Ohio-4824, at ¶12, citing Stаte ex rel. Jackman v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 159, 161. This presumptiоn remains until one challenging a statute‘s constitutionality shows, “beyond reаsonable doubt, that the statute is unconstitutional.” Ferguson at ¶12, citing Roosevelt Properties Co. v. Kinney (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 7, 13.
{¶8} Mollohan has made nо arguments in support of his assignment of error. Instead, he has filed this appeal “for the sole purpose of preserving the record fоr further appellate review in the future.” Brief of Appellant Richаrd Mollohan at 3. As Mollohan correctly notes, this court has already ruled against his various constitutional challenges in numerous cases. We have found that S.B. 10 does not violate (1) an individual‘s due process rights; seе, e.g., State v. Irvin, Ross App. No. 08CA3057, 2009-Ohio-3128, at ¶23-26; State v. Sewell, Ross App. No. 08CA3042, 2009-Ohio-594, at ¶15-18; State v. Netherland, Ross App. No. 08CA3043, 2008-Ohio-7007, at ¶16-21; (2) the United States Constitution‘s prohibition on ex post facto laws or the Ohio Constitution‘s prohibition on retroactive laws; see, e.g., State v. Coburn, Ross. App. No. 08CA3062, 2009-Ohio-632, at ¶8-13; State v. Randlett, Ross App. No. 08CA3046, 2009-Ohio-112, at ¶8-15; State v. Linville, Ross App. No. 08CA3051, 2009-Ohio-313, at ¶7-12; State v. Messer, Ross App. No. 08CA3050, 2009-Ohio-312, at ¶7-13; or (3) the prohibition against double jeopardy. See, e.g., Pletcher at ¶14-16; Messer at ¶29-31; Randlett at ¶24-27. We find no reason to reassess our determinations at this time.
{¶9} Accordingly, we overrule Mollohan‘s lone assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial сourt.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and Appellant pay the costs herein tаxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Washington County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Harsha, J. and Abele, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court
BY:
Roger L. Kline, Presiding Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant tо Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time рeriod for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.