State v. Beasley ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Beasley, 2011-Ohio-6650.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96806
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ANTHONY L. BEASLEY
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND VACATED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-521632
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Boyle, P.J., and E. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 22, 2011
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Robert Tobik
Chief Public Defender
BY: Cullen Sweeney
Assistant Public Defender
310 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Daniel T. Van
James M. Price
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶ 1} Appellant Anthony Beasley appeals his convictions in Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-521632. The state indicted Beasley on one count for
failure to verify his current address in violation of R.C. 2950.06(F). For the following
reasons, we reverse Beasley’s conviction and vacate his sentence.
{¶ 2} In 1997, Beasley was convicted of rape in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court Case No. CR-346960. He was sentenced to prison and classified as a sexually
oriented offender. Under that classification, Beasley was required to register and verify
his address annually for ten years from his date of release from prison. In July 2007,
Ohio’s version of the Adam Walsh Act (“AWA”) was enacted. After the AWA’s
enactment, Beasley was reclassified under the AWA tier system and required to verify his
address every 90 days for life.
{¶ 3} In August 2008, Beasley failed to verify his address. He had previously
verified his address in June 2008 according to his yearly reporting requirement under
Megan’s Law. Beasley pleaded guilty to the one count and was sentenced to three years
in prison. On March 4, 2011, Beasley filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Beasley attached his own affidavit to the motion setting forth the basis of the motion,
more specifically, stating he was reclassified under the AWA and subjected to the more
stringent reporting requirements. The trial court denied Beasley’s motion on the basis
that the indictment did not include, as an element of the offense, that his duty to register
arose from the AWA reporting requirements.
{¶ 4} It is from this order that Beasley now appeals, raising one assignment of
error, which provides as follows: “The trial court erred when it denied Mr. Beasley’s
motion to withdraw his guilty plea because Mr. Beasley’s conviction is predicated on an
unlawful reclassification and he is actually innocent of the charge.” In light of State v.
Bodyke, 126 Ohio St. 3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, and State v. Gingell, 128
Ohio St. 3d 444, 2011-Ohio-1481, 946 N.E.2d 192, we find that Beasley’s sole assignment
of error has merit.
{¶ 5} “A motion to withdraw a guilty plea of guilty or no contest may be made
only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence
may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her
plea.” Crim.R. 32.1. “Manifest injustice is a fundamental flaw in the path of justice so
extraordinary that the defendant could not have sought redress from the resulting
prejudice through another form of application reasonably available to him or her. It has
also been defined as ‘a clear or openly unjust act,’ which exists only in extraordinary
cases.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) State v. Cottrell, Cuyahoga App.
No. 95053, 2010-Ohio-5254, ¶ 15. We review a trial court’s denial of a postsentence
motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at ¶ 16.
{¶ 6} The Ohio Supreme Court held that reclassification under the AWA was
unlawful if offenders had a duty to report under Megan’s Law from a prior court order.
Bodyke, 126 Ohio St. 3d 266, at ¶ 22. Further, failing to report based on an AWA
registration requirement unlawfully imposed cannot serve as the basis of a reporting
violation charge, and convictions for such violations are void. State v. Gingell, 128
Ohio St. 3d 444; see, also, State v. Page, Cuyahoga App. No. 94369, 2011-Ohio-83, ¶ 10;
State v. Gilbert, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 95083 and 95084, 2011-Ohio-1928; State v. Smith,
Cuyahoga App. No. 92550, 2010-Ohio-2880, ¶ 29; State v. Patterson, Cuyahoga App.
No. 93096, 2010-Ohio-3715; State v. Jones, Cuyahoga App. No. 93822, 2010-Ohio-5004.
{¶ 7} In this case, the trial court denied Beasley’s postconviction motion to vacate
his plea on the basis that the indictment did not include the element that Beasley’s
reporting violation was predicated on the AWA requirements. While a true statement,
the indictment would never have information about the basis of an offender’s reporting
requirement. The basis of the reporting requirement is not an element of the
failure-to-verify offense, and therefore, it would not be included in the indictment.
Beasley attached an affidavit to his motion in which he stated that he was indicted for
failing to verify his address according to the 90-day reporting requirement, imposed based
on the unlawful reclassification, and that his reporting requirement upon release was to be
completed annually pursuant to Megan’s Law.
{¶ 8} A trial court abuses its discretion in denying a defendant’s motion to vacate
a plea without first conducting an evidentiary hearing when the motion includes evidence
sufficient to demonstrate a manifest injustice. State v. Russ, Cuyahoga App. No. 81580,
2003-Ohio-1001, ¶ 12. Beasley included evidence in support of his motion that
established that his conviction was invalid as a matter of law, and therefore he
demonstrated a manifest injustice. The trial court abused its discretion in summarily
denying Beasley’s motion.
{¶ 9} The state concedes that Beasley’s conviction for the reporting violation is
invalid if his unlawful reclassification served as the predicate of the reporting violation.
The state asks this court to remand the matter in order to determine whether the unlawful
reclassification served as the basis for Beasley’s conviction. We decline such a request
in light of the fact Beasley’s Megan’s Law reporting requirements could not have existed
as a matter of law when he was charged with the reporting violation.
{¶ 10} In August 2008 when Beasley was indicted, the only applicable law was the
AWA and the reporting requirements thereunder. When the Ohio legislature enacted the
AWA, it repealed Megan’s Law and required the Attorney General to reclassify all
offenders under the AWA. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St. 3d 266, at ¶ 20. Therefore, Beasley
could only be charged with violating his duty to report pursuant to the more stringent
AWA reporting requirements at the time he was indicted. See id. By legislative
decree, Beasley’s Megan’s Law reporting requirements no longer existed. It was not
until the Ohio Supreme Court issued the Bodyke decision in June 2010 that the Megan’s
Law reporting requirements were “reinstated.” Id. at ¶ 66.
{¶ 11} As a matter of law, Beasley was indicted for a reporting violation based on
Beasley’s reclassification, which was deemed unconstitutional. It therefore cannot serve
as the predicate for the violations charged in the indictment, and Beasley is permitted to
withdraw his plea in order to correct a manifest injustice. See, e.g., Gingell, 128 Ohio
St.3d 444. Beasley’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 12} We reverse the decision of the trial court, vacate Beasley’s conviction, and
remand for the sole purpose of vacating Beasley’s conviction and ordering his immediate
release from the prison time he is serving for the current case.
It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee 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.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR