DocketNumber: No. 86303.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 1201
Judges: KARPINSKI, J.:
Filed Date: 3/16/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} This court ruled that without a sexual animus to the kidnapping, a finding that defendant was a sexually oriented offender was unconstitutional. We explained that because there was no rational relationship between the crime and the purposes of the statute, the finding offended due process. We then remanded the case for the trial court to remove the order designating defendant to be a sexually-oriented offender, along with the reporting requirements. State v. Gooden, Cuyahoga App. No. 82621,
{¶ 3} Upon remand, the trial court held a hearing pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 4} When this court remanded the case at bar to the trial court for removal of defendant's sexually-oriented offender status, the trial court sua sponte ordered the warden of Richland Correctional Institute to forward an H.B. 180 packet to it and ordered the sheriff to transport defendant "FOR A HEARING PURSUANT TO H.B. 2950.091." Judgment entry of March 3, 2005. In its hearing on March 31, 2005, the court indicated the following: it had received a document which was a "screening instrument." On this document, a box marked "No" was checked "relative to whether the offender should be referred to the court for a sexual predator hearing." The court further observed it had no screening instrument relative to classifying him as a child-victim oriented offender, as well as no recommendation "that DRC wants Mr. Gooden screened" for classification as a child-victim predator. (Tr. 8) After holding a hearing applying the new statute, the trial court found defendant to be a child-victim oriented offender under the new statute and informed him of his reporting requirements. The court's judgment entry states:
HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO 2950.091 AS TO SEXUAL PREDATOR CLASSIFICATION. COURT HAS RECEIVED NO SCREENING INSTRUMENT FROM THE ODRC RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT BE CLASSIFIED AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR. ACCORDINGLY, THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO HOLD A HEARING AS TO SAME. COURT DECLARES PURSUANT TO O.R.C. 2950 THAT DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF A CHILD-VICTIM ORIENTED OFFENSE. COURT INFORMS DEFENDANT OF HIS REGISTRATION DUTIES IN REGARD TO THIS CLASSIFICATION. * * *
{¶ 5} Defendant timely appealed, stating four assignments of error. Because the third assignment of error is dispositive of the case, we discuss it first:
III. THE TRIAL COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO HOLD A CHILD VICTIM PREDATOR HEARING.
{¶ 6} Defendant argues that the trial court erred because this court's order was to vacate the sexually oriented offender finding, not to hold a hearing on whether defendant was a child-oriented offender. We agree that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold a child-victim offender hearing, but for a reason slightly different from what defendant articulated. The court lacked jurisdiction because defendant did not meet the express conditions that permitted R.C.
{¶ 7} R.C.
{¶ 8} The pertinent dates in the case at bar are as follows: the kidnapping occurred on May 19, 2002; defendant was convicted on January 28, 2003; defendant was sentenced on February 13, 2003; defendant was classified as a sexually-oriented offender on February 13, 2003. R.C.
{¶ 9} The first section of the new statute reads:
(A) (1) If, prior to the effective date of this section, a person was convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing, a sexually oriented offense,if, prior to the effective date of this section, the offender
or delinquent child was classified a sexual predator in relation to that offense pursuant to division (A) of section
{¶ 10} Because defendant was not designated a sexual predator at the hearing concerning sexual predator classification, this section does not apply to defendant.
{¶ 11} The next section of division (A) of the statute reads:
(2) If, prior to the effective date of this section, a personwas convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing a sexually oriented offense, if,prior to the effective date of this section, the offender or delinquent child was adjudicated a sexual predator in relation to that offense under section
Section (A)(2) similarly does not apply to defendant, because he was not adjudicated a sexual predator.
{¶ 12} The next section under division (A) reads:
(3) In all cases not described in division (A)(1) or (2) ofthis section, a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to,has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to, or is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing a child-victim oriented offensemay be classified a child-victim predator for purposes of this chapter only in accordance with division (B) or (C) of thissection or, regarding delinquent children, divisions (B) and (C) of section
{¶ 13} Division A depends upon whether divisions (B) or (C) apply, and they do not.
{¶ 14} Section (B) reads:
(B) (1) (a) Regardless of when the offense was committed, the judge who is to impose sentence on or after the effective dateof this section on an offender who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a child-victim oriented offense shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the offender is a child-victim predator. (Emphasis added.)
Section (B)(1)(a) does not apply to defendant, because he was sentenced on February 13, 2003, prior to the effective date of the statute, July 31, 2003. On the first remand this court affirmed all portions of defendant's conviction and reversed only his sexually oriented offender status. Defendant was not resentenced. The hearing the court held on remand was not a sentencing hearing; rather, the court held a hearing in order to make a finding as to his classification under R.C. 2950.91. Because defendant's sentence was imposed prior to the effective date of the statute and there was, and still is, no basis to resentence him, section (B)(1) does not apply to defendant. Therefore, no hearing can be held on the authority of Section (B)(1)(a).
{¶ 15} Nor does Section (B)(2) apply. Subsection (2) under division (B) requires that the judge hold the child-oriented offender hearing prior to the sentencing hearing. Subsection 3 addresses the procedure the trial court is to use when holding a hearing under (B)(1) and (4). We have explained above that (1) does not apply to defendant. Subsection (B)(4) similarly is conditioned upon (1). Because section (B) does not apply to defendant, who was sentenced prior to the effective date of R.C.
{¶ 16} Division (C) of the statute reads in pertinent part:
(C) (1) If, prior to the effective date of this section, aperson was convicted of or pleaded guilty to a sexually oriented offense, if, on and after the effective date of this section, the sexually oriented offense no longer is considered a sexually oriented offense but instead is a child-victim oriented offense, if the person was not sentenced for the offense on or afterJanuary 1, 1997, and if * * *.
Defendant in the case at bar was sentenced after January 1, 1997. Section (C)(1), therefore, does not apply to him. Nor does Section (C)(2), because its language "[i]f, pursuant to division (C)(1) of this section * * *" introduces a prerequisite we have determined above does not apply to defendant.
{¶ 17} At oral argument, the prosecutor insisted that defendant fell under (C)(3) of the statute:
(3) Divisions (C)(1) and (2) of this section do not require a court to conduct a new hearing under those divisions for any offender regarding a child-victim oriented offense if, prior to the effective date of this section, the court previously conducted a hearing under divisions (C)(1) and (2) of section
Both the first and second sentences of this subsection apply only to offenders who fit the requirements of (C)(1) and (C)(2), and we have above held defendant does not satisfy those requirements. Further, this subsection does not authorize any classification of an offender for a child-victim oriented offense; it simply explains whether there is any requirement for a hearing.
{¶ 18} Even if, arguendo, the date limitations of section (C) did not disqualify defendant under (C)(3), the statutory requirement, in sentence two, for a previous recommendation from the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections would eliminate him. Although the trial court stated at the second hearing on March 31, 2005 that it had received from the institution a "list identifying Mr. Gooden and others as people who should have sexual predator hearings * * *," the court further stated the screening instrument it received expressly did not recommend any such status for defendant.
{¶ 19} At the first hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant for the crime and found him to be a sexually-oriented offender on the same date, February 13, 2002. At the time of his sentencing and initial offender hearing, defendant had not yet been in prison. The Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, therefore, could not have made a recommendation for a prisoner it did not yet have.
{¶ 20} Nothing in the record indicates that the Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections ever made any recommendation regarding his classification, even later after he had been sent to prison. The record reflects that, prior to holding its second hearing on remand from this court, the trial court ordered an H.B. 180 packet from the warden. As it noted in its judgment entry, however, the court "RECEIVED NO SCREENING INSTRUMENT FROM THE ORDC RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT BE CLASSIFIED AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR." Judgment Entry of April 1, 2005. Because the date requirements of section (C) exclude defendant and because the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections never recommended that he be found a sexual predator, section (C)(3) does not authorize any classification of defendant.
{¶ 21} We conclude that divisions (A), (B), and (C) of R.C.
{¶ 22} Nor do the remaining divisions apply. Division (D) is limited in application to juvenile offenders. Division (E) addresses offenders who previously had been determined to be habitual sex offenders. Because defendant was not adjudicated a habitual sex offender, this section does not apply to him. Division (F) of the statute applies to persons who have been adjudicated a child-oriented offender in "a court of another state, in a federal court, a military court, or Indian tribal court, or in a court of any nation other than the United States for committing a child-victim oriented offense." Because defendant's conviction was in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, this division does not apply to him.
{¶ 23} In fact, no section of R.C.
Vacated and remanded.
This cause is vacated and remanded.
It is, therefore, ordered that appellant recover of appellee his costs herein taxed.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said 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.
Celebrezze, Jr., P.J., and McMonagle, J., concur.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IGNORING THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA AS THIS MATTER WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT RULING THAT R.C.