DocketNumber: No. 05 CAA 09 0062.
Judges: BOGGINS, J.
Filed Date: 6/20/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 3} On June 22, 2005, a sexual predator hearing was held. At said hearing, both parties agreed that Appellant had committed a sexually oriented offense and that Appellant was a sexually oriented offender. At the conclusion of said hearing, the trial court found that Appellant was not a sexual predator but was a sexually oriented offender and ordered him to register as such.
{¶ 4} It is from such decision that Appellant now appeals, assigning the following error for review:
{¶ 7} Specifically, Appellant argues that the retroactivity clause of the Ohio Constitution and the Ex Post Facto provisions of the United States Constitution prohibit the trial court from imposing such duty.
{¶ 8} At appellant's dispositional hearing, the trial court classified appellant as a "sexually oriented offender," after finding the classifications of "sexual predator" and "habitual sexual offender" to be inapplicable. "A sexually oriented offender is a person who has committed a ``sexually oriented offense' as defined in R.C.
{¶ 9} R.C. §
{¶ 10} A sexually-oriented offender who has not been adjudicated a sexual predator or habitual sexual offender is required to register and annually verify, for a period of ten years, his or her whereabouts with the sheriff in the county in which the offender resides. See R.C. §
{¶ 11} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in ordering the defendant to register as a sexually-oriented offender pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2950
{¶ 12} The Ohio Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have addressed these issues and found that these types of sexual offender registration laws are not punitive in nature and do not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws, without reference to the ability of the offender to petition for revision of the classification. Smith v. Doe (2003),
{¶ 13} Moreover, State v. Cook,
{¶ 14} Based on the foregoing, this Court finds Appellant's sole assignment of error not well-taken and same is hereby overruled.
{¶ 15} Accordingly, the judgment of the Delaware County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Boggins, J. Hoffman, P.J. and Edwards, J. concurs.