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. Richard Ogletree

November 10, 2011

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
RICHARD OGLETREE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-535185

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kathleen Ann Keough, J.:

Cite as State v. Ogletree,

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED

BEFORE: Keough, J., Blackmon, P.J., and Cooney, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Richard Ogletree, appeals his convictions for failure to notify the sheriff of a change of address and tampering with records. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand with instructions to enter an order vacating Ogletree's convictions and sentence.

I

{¶2} In 1983, Ogletree was convicted of rape in Case No. CR-181061. Upon his release from prison, he was classified as a sexually oriented offender under Megan's Law and began reporting. As a sexually oriented offender under Megan's Law, Ogeltree was required to register once a year for ten years and was not subject to community notification.

{¶3} Ogletree was subsequently reclassified by the Ohio attorney general as a Tier III sex offender under the Adam Walsh Act ("AWA"), which became effective in January 2008. As a result of the new classification, Ogletree was required to verify his address every 90 days for the rest of his life, and was subject to community notification requirements, as well as restrictions on where he could lawfully reside.

{¶4} In 2008, Ogletree and two other defendants filed petitions under R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, challenging their reclassifications and the application of the AWA. In June 2010, while the petitions were pending, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, in which it held that the provisions of the AWA that required the attorney general to reclassify sex offenders whose classifications had already been made the subject of a final order were unconstitutional because they violated the separation-of-powers doctrine. Id. at ¶2. As a remedy, the Ohio Supreme Court severed the offending provisions of the AWA and reinstated the previously imposed judicial classifications of sex offenders and corresponding community-notification and registration requirements. Id. Thereafter, the trial court granted Ogletree's petition pursuant to Bodyke, and entered an order restoring him to his previous status as a sexually oriented offender under Megan's Law, with corresponding registration requirements.*fn1

{¶5} In March 2010, before the Bodyke decision was announced and before the trial court had reinstated his prior classification, Ogletree was indicted under the AWA for (1) failing to verify his address with the sheriff in violation of R.C. 2950.05(F), (2) failing to notify the sheriff of a change of address in violation of R.C. 2950.05(E)(1), and (3) tampering with records in violation of R.C. 2913.42(A), based on an allegation that he falsified documents by providing the sheriff with a false address. The failing-to-verify and failing-to-notify charges both contained a furthermore specification that Ogletree had previously committed the same crime. The offenses allegedly occurred on January 10, 2010.

{¶6} The trial court subsequently denied Ogletree's motion to dismiss the indictment. After a bench trial, the trial court found Ogletree not guilty of the failing-to-verify charge, but guilty of failing to notify the sheriff of a change of address, with the furthermore specification, and tampering with records. The court sentenced him to an aggregate term of three years incarceration. Ogletree now appeals from these convictions and sentence.

II

{ΒΆ7} In his first assignment of error, Ogletree argues that the trial court should have dismissed the indictment because the charges were brought under the ...


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.