State v. WilliamsState v. Williams
Rendered on the 30th day of July, 2010.
. . . . . . . . . .
JOHNNA M. SHIA, Atty. Reg. No. 0067685, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
MICHAEL R. PENTECOST, Atty. Reg. No. 0036803, Law Office of the Public Defender, 117 S. Main Street, Suite 300, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
. . . . . . . . . .
DONOVAN, P.J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Appeal of Glenn S. Williams, filed January 11, 2008. Williams was indicted on 10 counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, felonies of the fourth degree, in violation of
{¶ 2} Williams asserts one assignment of error as follows:
{¶ 3} APPLICATION OF S.B. 10 TO CLASSIFY APPELLANT AS A TIER II OFFENDER VIOLATES THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE RETROACTIVE CLAUSE OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE, AND PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.
{¶ 4} We have previously rejected these contentions in other sexual offender classification cases. See, e.g., State v. Desbiens, Montgomery App. No. 22489, 2008-Ohio-3375; State v. Barker, Montgomery App. No. 22963, 2009-Ohio-2774; State v. Dobson, Miami App. No. 2008 CA 43, 2010-Ohio-279; and State v. Heys, Miami App. No. 09-CA-04, 2009-Ohio-5397.
{¶ 5} In Desbiens, we held that S.B. 10 sets forth a civil and non-punitive reclassification and registration scheme. Id., at ¶ 26, citing State v. King, Miami App. No. 08-CA-02, 2008-Ohio-2594. We therefore rejected the petitioner‘s claims that S.B. 10 violates several constitutional rights, including his right to protection from ex post facto laws, his right to substantive due process, his right to contract, and his right to procedural due process. Id., at ¶ 18.
{¶ 7} In July, 2008, this court held that S.B. 10 did not offend the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution because S.B. 10 is civil and non-punitive. * * * In November, 2008, we held S.B. 10 did not violate the ex post facto clause or retroactive clause of the Ohio Constitution. * * * Having determined * * * that S.B. 10 is civil and non-punitive, Barker‘s claim that the legislation violates the cruel and unusual punishment clauses and the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitution must fail as well. 2009-Ohio-2774, at ¶ 3 (citations omitted).
{¶ 8} Subsequently in Heys, we rejected the petitioner‘s contention that S.B. 10 deprived him of substantive and procedural due process rights. * * *
{¶ 9} * * *
{¶ 10} Furthermore, no liberty interest is implicated. * * * A constitutionally protected liberty interest has been defined as freedom from bodily restraint and punishment. * * * The Ohio Supreme Court held that the previous registration requirements involved no bodily restraint or punishment; they are neither criminal nor punitive in nature. * * * Similarly, the S.B. 10 requirements have also been found to be non-punitive. 2009-Ohio-5397, at ¶ 11-12 (citations omitted).
{¶ 11} Finally, regarding residency restrictions, we commented in Dobson as follows:
{¶ 12} Heys, like Dobson, had further claimed that he was denied substantive due process, because his property interest is hindered by the residency requirements. We noted, initially, that an individual must actually suffer a deprivation of property rights in order to
{¶ 13} Williams has not alleged or established that he has been deprived of property rights. He therefore, lacks standing to pursue this claim. Furthermore, as noted in Dobson, we have rejected the contention that residency restrictions infringe upon a fundamental right.
{¶ 14} On June 3, 2010, the Supreme Court of Ohio decided State v. Bodyke, ---- Ohio St.3d ----, 2010-Ohio-2424, holding that the scheme of reclassifications of sexual offenders by the Ohio Attorney General, mandated by
{¶ 15} Williams’ constitutional challenges to S.B. 10 are without merit and are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
. . . . . . . . . .
BROGAN, J. and FAIN, J., concur.
Johnna M. Shia
Michael R. Pentecost
Hon. Mary Katherine Huffman