Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Montgomery v. Leffler

December 5, 2008

RUSSELL LEE MONTGOMERY APPELLANT
v.
RUSS LEFFLER-STATE OF OHIO, ET AL. APPELLEES



Trial Court No. CVH 20080142.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Singer, J.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

{¶1} Appellant appeals his reclassification as a Tier II sex offender, pursuant to the Ohio Sex Offender Registration Act. For the reasons that follow, we affirm his reclassification.

{¶2} In 1998, appellant, Russell Lee Montgomery, was convicted of two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. Pursuant to the version of R.C. 2950 then effective, appellant was classified as a sexually oriented offender.

{¶3} In 2007, the Ohio General Assembly enacted a revision of R.C. Chapter 2950 and related statutes. Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10 (Ohio's Adam Walsh Act). The act eliminated the prior sex offender classifications, substituting a three-tier classification based on the offense committed.

{¶4} In a November 26, 2007 letter, the Ohio Attorney General advised appellant that, pursuant to S.B. 10, he was being reclassified from a "sexually oriented offender" to a "Tier II Offender." According to appellant, such reclassification changes his sex offender registration requirements from annually for 10 years to biannually for 25 years. Appellant characterizes these reporting changes as "onerous."

{¶5} On November 7, 2008, appellant requested a hearing to contest the application of S.B. 10 to him and sought that the court bar his reclassification. Following the hearing, the trial court found that appellant had been appropriately reclassified and denied his request. From this judgment, appellant now brings his appeal, setting forth the following ten assignments of error:

{¶6} "Assignment of Error No. I: The trial court violated appellant's constitutional rights in retroactively applying Ohio's AWA against appellant.

{¶7} "Assignment of Error No. II: The trial court violated appellant's Ohio constitutional rights in retroactively applying Ohio's AWA against appellant.

{¶8} "Assignment of Error No. III: The trial court violated the doctrine of separation of powers in retroactively applying Ohio's AWA against appellant.

{¶9} "Assignment of Error No. IV: The trial court violated the double jeopardy clause of the United States and Ohio Constitution by reclassifying appellant and subjecting him to multiple punishments.

{¶10} "Assignment of Error No. V: The residency restrictions of the AWA violate appellant's right to due process.

{¶11} "Assignment of Error No. VI: The trial court erred in subjecting appellant to the community notification requirements under AWA, because appellant was not subject to community notification requirements under pre-AWA law.

{¶12} "Assignment of Error No. VII: The trial court violated the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by applying the AWA against appellant.

{¶13} "Assignment of Error No. VIII: The trial court violated the protection against bills of attainder by applying the AWA against appellant.

{ΒΆ14} "Assignment of Error No. IX: The trial court violated the eighth amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment by ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.