State v. Schaffhauser , 2013 Ohio 1011 ( 2013 )

[Cite as State v. Schaffhauser, 2013-Ohio-1011.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : William B. Hoffman, P.J.
: Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : John W. Wise, J.
:
-vs- : Case No. 2012 CA 00078
:
:
RICHARD SCHAFFHAUSER : OPINION
:
Defendant-Appellant :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from Stark County
Court of Common Pleas Case No.
2007 CR 1772
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 18, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN D. FERRERO RICHARD SCHAFFHAUSER
Prosecuting Attorney Inmate No. A604-038
Stark County, Ohio Belmont Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 540
BY: KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Appellate Section
110 Central Plaza, South – Suite 510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
[Cite as State v. Schaffhauser, 2013-Ohio-1011.]
Farmer, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Richard Schaffhauser, appeals from the March 23,
2012, Judgment Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas granting plaintiff-
appellee State of Ohio’s Motion to Dismiss his Petition to Contest Reclassification.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On December 5, 2007, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellant on
one count of sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(1), a felony of the third
degree, and one count of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a misdemeanor of the
first degree. At his arraignment on December 7, 2007, appellant entered a plea of not
guilty to the charges.
{¶3} Thereafter, on March 3, 2008, appellant withdrew his former not guilty plea
and entered a plea of guilty to an amended charge of gross sexual imposition in
violation of R.C. 2907.05(A), a felony of the fourth degree, and to assault. Pursuant to a
Judgment Entry filed on March 7, 2008, appellant was sentenced to an aggregate
sentence of fourteen (14) months in prison. The trial court also designated appellant a
Tier I Sex Offender.
{¶4} On January 19, 2012, appellant filed a Petition to Contest Reclassification
pursuant to R.C. 2950.031(E) and 2950.032(E). In response, appellee, on January 30,
2012, filed a Motion to Dismiss appellant’s petition. As memorialized in a Judgment
Entry filed on March 23, 2012, the trial court granted such motion and dismissed
appellant’s petition.
{¶5} Appellant has not set forth any assignments of error. However, it appears
that appellant is arguing that the trial court erred in classifying him as a Tier I offender
Stark County App. Case No. 2012 CA 00078 3
under the Adam Walsh Act. Appellant specifically appears to argue that the Adam
Walsh Child Protection Safety Act (“AWA”), as enacted by the Ohio General Assembly
in Am.Sub. S.B. No. 10 and effective January 1, 2008, may not be applied retroactively
to him.
{¶6} In State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011–Ohio–3374, 952 N.E.2d
1108, the Ohio Supreme Court held in the syllabus that, “2007 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10, as
applied to defendants who committed sex offenses prior to its enactment, violates
Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly
from passing retroactive laws.” The defendant in Williams committed the sexually
oriented offenses before the effective date of S.B. 10. He was designated a Tier II sex
offender by the trial court after the effective date of S.B. 10. Williams at ¶ 1–2. The
Ohio Supreme Court held that application to S.B. 10 to him was unconstitutional.
{¶7} However, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Williams, never addressed whether
an individual who committed a sex offense after S.B. 10’s June 27, 2007 “enactment”
date but before the date on which S.B. 10's registration, classification and community-
notification provisions became effective (January 1, 2008) was subject to S.B. 10's
provisions, or whether he or she is subject to the provisions of the predecessor statute,
Megan's Law.
{¶8} Recently, In In re Bruce S., --N.E.2d--, 2012-Ohio-5696, the Ohio
Supreme Court held, in relevant part, as follows: “We … hold that Senate Bill 10's
classification, registration, and community-notification provisions cannot be
constitutionally applied to a sex offender who committed his sex offense between July 1,
2007, and December 31, 2007, the last day before January 1, 2008, the effective date
Stark County App. Case No. 2012 CA 00078 4
of S.B. 10's classification, registration, and community-notification provisions.” Id. at ¶
12.
{¶9} In the case sub judice, appellant allegedly committed his offenses in
October of 2007. Because appellant committed his offenses after S.B. 10’s enactment
date (June 27, 2007) but before its effective date of January 1, 2008, the trial court
erred in applying S.B. 10 to him.
{¶10} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is, therefore, sustained.
{¶11} Accordingly, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is
reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
By: Farmer, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur
s/ Sheila G. Farmer_______________
s/ William B. Hoffman_____________
s/ John W. Wise_________________
JUDGES
SGF/d0304
[Cite as State v. Schaffhauser, 2013-Ohio-1011.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
RICHARD SCHAFFHAUSER :
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 2012CA00078
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the
judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and this matter is
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs assessed to appellee.
s/ Sheila G. Farmer_______________
s/ William B. Hoffman_____________
s/ John W. Wise_________________
JUDGES