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.

State of Ohio v. Douglas E. May

November 1, 2011

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DOUGLAS E. MAY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
VERNELL WADE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE BECKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DEWAYNE M. STRONG, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DENNIS ECKSTEIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD BILLINGSLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,
v.
BRYAN M. SAGLE, PETITIONER-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,
v.
DARRELL H. MESSINA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND T. WHALEN, PETITIONER-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL W. MITCHELL, PETITIONER-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,
v.
WONE R. REEVES, PETITIONER-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,
v.
DON E. GARVIN, PETITIONER-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL A. SMITH, PETITIONER-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DANNIE C. ADKINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID G. MAVIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,
v.
TONY L. JACKSON, PETITIONER-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT A. WEBB, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN L. SMITH, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CHRIS A. FRYE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CECILY CROCKETT, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL A. LEGINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES GRAY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
SAMUEL J. FILLMORE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER L. DUNNO, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



APPEALS from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No. 05 CR 46) (C.P.C. No. 85 CR 2500) (C.P.C. No. 96 CR 2815) (C.P.C. No. 92 CR 3606A) (C.P.C. No. 95 CR 3238) (C.P.C. No. 92 CR 3941) (C.P.C. No. 08MS 53) (C.P.C. No. 09 MS 137) (C.P.C. No. 08 MS 82) (C.P.C. No. 08 MS 250) (C.P.C. No. 08 MS 595) (C.P.C. No. 08 MS 106) (C.P.C. No. 08 MS 784) (C.P.C. No. 96 CR 3183) (C.P.C. No. 99CR 2912) (C.P.C. No. 09 MS 501) (C.P.C. No. 81 CR 4147C) (C.P.C. No. 00 CR 5779) (C.P.C. No. 88 CR 1086) (C.P.C. No. 00 CR 6328) (C.P.C. No. 90 CR 3174) (C.P.C. No. 89 CR 328) (C.P.C. No. 01 CR 5133) (C.P.C. No. 02 CR 1135)

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

(REGULAR CALENDAR)

DECISION

{¶1} This is a consolidated appeal filed on behalf of the State of Ohio as to many individuals granted relief as a result of the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424. The State of Ohio sets forth three assignments of error:

[I.] THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF ON THE BASIS OF A PETITION THAT WAS FILED PURSUANT TO A SPECIAL STATUTORY PROCEEDING THAT HAS NOW BEEN SEVERED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY THE OHIO SUPREME COURT.

[II.] THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED IN AWARDING RELIEF BASED ON STATE V. BODYKE IN THE ABSENCE OF A PRIOR JUDICIAL CLASSIFICATION.

[III.] THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT EACH PETITIONER "IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS IN EFFECT PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2008."

{¶2} The first assignment of error has been addressed many times already by this court. See, for example, State v. Watkins, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-669, 2010-Ohio-4187 and State v. Houston, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-592, 2010-Ohio-4374. These decisions are completely consistent with the rulings of the Ohio Supreme Court in the Bodyke case and in several Supreme Court cases following Bodyke. We continue to follow the rulings of the Ohio Supreme Court, as indeed we must.

{¶3} The first assignment of error is overruled.

{¶4} The Ohio Supreme Court has also addressed the merits of the second assignment of error. See In re Sexual-Offender Reclassification Cases, 126 Ohio St.3d 322, 2010-Ohio-3753 and In re Sexual Offender Reclassification Cases, 126 Ohio St.3d 505, 2010-Ohio-4725. This court has also addressed and rejected the state's argument on this issue. See, e.g., State v. Hazlett, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-1069, 2010-Ohio-6119, ¶11 (finding that the severance remedy of Bodyke "makes no distinction between those classified judicially and those classified by operation of law"); State v. Core, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-192, 2010-Ohio-6292, ¶29 ("although appellant's prior classification (i.e., sexually oriented offender) arose by operation of law, appellant's 'reclassification made under the severed statutes must be vacated and his prior sex-offender classification reinstated.' "). We follow those cases and respect their holdings.

{¶5} The second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶6} We view the merits of the third assignment of error as having been addressed by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Gingell, 128 Ohio St.3d 444, 2011- Ohio-1481 and State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374. This view has been expressed in our prior cases. See, for instance, State v. Young, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-911, 2011-Ohio-2374.

{¶7} We therefore overrule the third assignment of error.

{ΒΆ8} All three assignments of error having been overruled, the various judgments of the Franklin County Court ...


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.