In re K.C. , 2020 Ohio 836 ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as In re K.C., 
    2020-Ohio-836
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    WOOD COUNTY
    In re K.C.                                       Court of Appeals No. WD-19-066
    Trial Court No. 2018 JA 0421
    DECISION AND JUDGMENT
    Decided: March 6, 2020
    *****
    Autumn D. Adams, for appellant.
    Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, Charles S.
    Bergman, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, and David T.
    Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
    *****
    PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
    {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, K.C., appeals the August 2, 2019 judgment of the
    Wood County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which found that appellant
    qualified as a mandatory registrant and classified him as a Tier I offender which requires
    him to provide in-person verification for ten years. Because we conclude that the
    juvenile sex offender registry and the age-based classification system under R.C.
    2152.83(A) is constitutional, we affirm.
    {¶ 2} On May 29, 2018, appellant, then 17 years old, was charged with one count
    of rape, a felony of the first degree if committed by an adult. The charge stemmed from
    sexual contact with a minor victim under the age of 13. On July 17, 2018, appellant was
    adjudicated a delinquent child and the matter was set for disposition.
    {¶ 3} The dispositional hearing was held on July 24, 2018. Thereafter, on July 25,
    2018, appellant was ordered committed to the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS)
    for a minimum period of one year and a maximum not exceeding his 21st birthday.
    {¶ 4} Following appellant’s release from the DYS, a sexual registration and
    classification hearing was held on August 1, 2019. Because of his age at the time of the
    offense, the court classified appellant as a Tier I juvenile offender registrant under R.C.
    2152.83, which required that he register annually for a period of ten years.
    {¶ 5} Appellant commenced the instant appeal and raises the following two
    assignments of error for our review:
    Assignment of Error I: The juvenile sex offender registry is
    unconstitutional as it is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental
    interest because the registry provides minimal notice, if any at all, to the
    general public of the juvenile’s status of a sex offender.
    2.
    Assignment of Error II: Appellant’s status as a mandatory sex
    offender registrant under Revised Code section 2152.83(A) violates the
    Equal Protection Clause of the United States and Ohio Constitution[s]
    because it creates classes of similarly situated children who are treated
    differently.
    {¶ 6} When the issue of the constitutionality of a statue is raised on appeal, our
    review is de novo. David P. v. Kim D., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-06-1164, 
    2007-Ohio-1865
    ,
    ¶ 15, citing Andreyko v. Cincinnati, 
    153 Ohio App.3d 108
    , 
    2003-Ohio-2759
    , 
    791 N.E.2d 1025
    , ¶ 11 (1st Dist.). Because statutes are presumed constitutional, any challenge must
    be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    Id.,
     citing Beagle v. Walden, 
    78 Ohio St.3d 59
    , 61,
    
    676 N.E.2d 506
     (1997).
    {¶ 7} This court has recently addressed identical assignments of error in an appeal
    following an appellant’s designation as a Tier I juvenile sexual offender. In re N.W., 6th
    Dist. Wood No. WD-19-051, 
    2020-Ohio-290
    . In N.W., the juvenile appellant, 16 years
    old, was adjudicated a delinquent child on one count of gross sexual imposition involving
    a 15-year-old victim. Id. at ¶ 2.
    {¶ 8} Rejecting appellant’s assignments of error challenging the constitutionality
    of the age-based, tiered classification system under R.C. 2152.83, we noted:
    We find that the age-based juvenile sex offender classification
    system set forth in R.C. 2152.83 can reasonably be found to reflect
    consideration of a greater of risk of recidivism and a higher level of
    3.
    seriousness of offenses as the age of the offender rises, and, therefore, the
    interest in protecting the public increases as the age of the juvenile sex
    offender increases.
    As such, the juvenile sex offender classification consequences
    escalate as the age of the juvenile offender increases towards the age of
    majority. This system can reasonably be found to reflect a rational
    relationship between the statutory provisions and a legitimate government
    interest in protection of the public from offenders.
    Id. at ¶ 16-17. See In re J.R., 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-15-075, 
    2016-Ohio-4751
    ; In re
    D.S., 
    146 Ohio St.3d 182
    , 
    2016-Ohio-1027
    , 
    54 N.E.3d 1184
    . Reviewing this case,
    de novo, and upon application of this court’s and the Supreme Court of Ohio’s precedent,
    we reject appellant’s first and second assignments of error.
    {¶ 9} On consideration whereof, we find that appellant was not prejudiced or
    prevented from having a fair proceeding and the judgment of the Wood County Court of
    Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is
    ordered to pay the costs of this appeal.
    Judgment affirmed.
    4.
    In re K.C.
    C.A. No. WD-19-066
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
    See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
    Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.                       _______________________________
    JUDGE
    Christine E. Mayle, J.
    _______________________________
    Gene A. Zmuda, P.J.                                        JUDGE
    CONCUR.
    _______________________________
    JUDGE
    This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
    Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
    version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
    http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
    5.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WD-19-066

Citation Numbers: 2020 Ohio 836

Judges: Pietrykowsski

Filed Date: 3/6/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021