DocketNumber: No. 07CA3004.
Citation Numbers: 900 N.E.2d 1045, 179 Ohio App. 3d 107, 2008 Ohio 5763
Judges: Abele, Kline, McFarland
Filed Date: 11/4/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Ross County Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction and sentence. Ryan L. Graves, defendant below and appellant herein, pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition, in violation of R.C.
First Assignment of Error:
The trial court erred by relying on double hearsay to find that Ryan Graves' conduct against the victim of the offense for which was convicted constituted part of a "pattern of abuse."
Second Assignment of Error:
The trial court erred as a matter of law by misinterpreting Ohio Revised Code Section 2150.09(B)(3)(h) to allow consideration of conduct against persons other than the victim of the crime for which Graves was convicted.
Third Assignment of Error:
The trial court's decision adjudicating Ryan Graves to be a sexual predator is against the manifest weight of the evidence and is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
{¶ 2} The facts in this case are undisputed. Appellant engaged in sexual conduct with a 12-year-old in August 2006. After that incident came to light and police investigated the offense, they found nude photographs of other minor females on appellant's computer discs.
{¶ 3} On May 18, 2007, the Ross County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging appellant with (1) gross sexual imposition and (2) three counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material. Appellant pleaded not guilty to all offenses.
{¶ 4} The trial court eventually dismissed the charges of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented materials, and appellant agreed to plead guilty to gross sexual *Page 109 imposition. At the November 2, 2007 hearing, the court adjudicated appellant a "sexual predator" and sentenced him to serve two years' imprisonment. This appeal followed.
{¶ 5} Before we consider the merits of the assignments of error, we must first address a procedural and jurisdictional question that both sides raise in their briefs. Generally, appellate courts do not address issues that become moot. Redmon v. Columbus City Council, Franklin App. No. 05AP-466,
{¶ 6} Appellee argues that appellant's challenges to the trial court's sexual-predator adjudication have been rendered moot by the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act ("AWA") in 2007. Am. Sub. S.B. 10, 2007 Ohio Laws, File No. 10. This legislation applies retroactively, appellee posits, and changed appellant's classification from "sexual predator" to a "Tier II sex offender." Accordingly, because appellant is no longer classified a "sexual predator," any error in making that classification is moot. Appellant takes no position on whether the legislation is to be applied retroactively, but concedes in a footnote that "this appeal may be moot."
{¶ 7} After our review of both the legislation and statutory changes, as well as decisions of other courts who have examined them, we agree with appellee that this appeal has been rendered moot.
{¶ 8} Retroactive statutes are limited by two principles. Hyle v. Porter,
{¶ 9} We believe that clear declaration is found in R.C.
{¶ 10} Other courts that have considered this question buttress our conclusion. The Second District Court of Appeals simply assumed that the statute applied retroactively.State v. Desbiens, Montgomery App. No. 22489,
{¶ 11} Having determined that the new registration scheme was intended to apply retrospectively, the next question is whether the retrospective application violates the Section
{¶ 12} Ten years ago, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a registration requirement as part of "Meaghan's Law." See State v. Cook (1998),
{¶ 13} Also, one declared purpose for this legislation is to disseminate information on sex offenders to the general public as a means of "assuring public protection." R.C.
{¶ 14} For these reasons, we conclude that the AWA applies[Fn2] retroactively and that appellant is no longer classified as a sexual predator. Thus, any error the trial court may have committed in making that adjudication under the old classification scheme has been rendered moot. Therefore, we hereby dismiss the appeal because no case or controversy exists for us to resolve.
Appeal dismissed.
KLINE and McFARLAND, JJ., concur.
Smith v. Doe , 123 S. Ct. 1140 ( 2003 )
State v. Desbiens, 22489 (7-3-2008) , 2008 Ohio 3375 ( 2008 )
State v. Linville, 08ca3051 (1-20-2009) , 2009 Ohio 313 ( 2009 )
State v. Coburn, 08ca3062 (2-10-2009) , 2009 Ohio 632 ( 2009 )
State v. Messer, 08ca3050 (1-20-2009) , 2009 Ohio 312 ( 2009 )
State v. Randlett, 08ca3046 (1-9-2009) , 2009 Ohio 112 ( 2009 )
State v. Bodyke, H-07-040 (12-5-2008) , 2008 Ohio 6387 ( 2008 )
State ex rel. Ebersole v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (... , 140 Ohio St. 3d 487 ( 2014 )