State v. Omiecinski ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Omiecinski, 
    2012-Ohio-98
    .]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    No. 90510
    STATE OF OHIO
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
    vs.
    PATRICK OMIECINSKI
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
    JUDGMENT:
    AFFIRMED
    Criminal Appeal from the
    Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
    Case No. CR-492609
    BEFORE:           Boyle, P.J., Sweeney, J., and Celebrezze, J.
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED:                       January 12, 2012
    2
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
    Susan J. Moran
    55 Public Square
    Suite 1616
    Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1901
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    William D. Mason
    Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
    BY: Pamela Bolton
    Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
    The Justice Center
    1200 Ontario Street
    Cleveland, Ohio 44113
    MARY J. BOYLE, P.J.:
    {¶ 1} This appeal is before this court on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court for
    application of State v. Williams, 
    129 Ohio St.3d 344
    , 
    2011-Ohio-3374
    , 
    952 N.E.2d 1108
    .
    {¶ 2} Defendant-appellant, Patrick Omiecinski, pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual
    battery in August 2007 for events that occurred in September 2006. In September 2007, the trial
    court classified Omiecinski as a sexually oriented offender and sentenced him to four years in
    prison. The trial court also informed Omiecinski that he would be subject to five years of
    postrelease control and “advised” him that, as of January 2008, he would be classified as a Tier
    III sex offender under the Adam Walsh Act (“AWA” or “S.B. 10”).
    {¶ 3} Omiecinski appealed, challenging his consecutive sentence, his plea, and the
    AWA as applied to him. See State v. Omiecinski, 8th Dist. No. 90510, 
    2009-Ohio-1066
    . This
    court affirmed his consecutive sentence, holding that it was neither contrary to law nor an abuse
    of discretion, upheld his plea, concluding that the trial court did not err when it failed to inform
    3
    him at his plea hearing that he would be subject to the AWA in the future, and determined that
    his constitutional challenge to the AWA was premature, finding that he had not yet been
    classified under it. Id. at ¶19, 43, and 45, respectively.
    {¶ 4} Omiecinski appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which held the appeal for its
    decision in Williams, 
    supra.
     See State v. Omiecinski, 
    126 Ohio St.3d 1533
    , 
    2010-Ohio-3825
    ,
    
    931 N.E.2d 1097
    .
    {¶ 5} The Ohio Supreme Court released its decision in Williams in July 2011. It held
    that “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.” 
    Id.,
     129 Ohio St.3d at the syllabus.
    {¶ 6} Omiecinski committed his offenses prior to the enactment of S.B. 10. A review
    of the record here, however, reveals that Omiecinski was never classified under S.B. 10. He was
    sentenced in September 2007 and classified at that time as a sexually oriented offender under
    Megan’s Law. Omiecinski filed his notice of appeal in October 2007. His case has been
    pending appeal — in this court or the Ohio Supreme Court — since that time. Accordingly, we
    conclude that Omiecinski’s classification as a sexually oriented offender under Megan’s Law
    remains intact, and the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Williams established that he cannot be
    reclassified under the AWA.
    {¶ 7} Having concluded that Omiecinski is classified as a sexually oriented offender, his
    second assignment of error dealing with his plea is moot (he argued that his plea was invalid
    because the trial court did not inform him that he would be subject to the AWA in the future).
    4
    As for his first assignment of error dealing with his consecutive sentence, our opinion in State v.
    Omiecinski, 8th Dist. No. 90510, 
    2009-Ohio-1066
    , released on March 12, 2009, remains valid.
    Judgment affirmed.
    FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and
    JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR
    It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
    The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas
    court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having been affirmed,
    any bail pending appeal is terminated.      Case remanded to the trial court for execution of
    sentence.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
    Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 90510

Judges: Boyle

Filed Date: 1/12/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014