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 v. Love

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District

July 17, 2013

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAMES LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Trial No. B-9601201.

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William Gallagher, for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

HENDON, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant James Love appeals from the trial court's judgment adjudicating him a sexual predator under the Megan's Law version of R.C. Chapter 2950. We affirm.

Facts

{¶2} In 1996, Love was found guilty of four counts of rape, with force, of a child under the age of 13. The trial court sentenced Love to consecutive life sentences on each count. While he was incarcerated on these charges, Love was never returned to Hamilton County for a sexual-offender-classification hearing under Megan's Law.

{¶3} Following a series of appeals, Love was granted a new trial that ultimately culminated in Love pleading guilty in September 2012 to two counts of gross sexual imposition that had occurred in 1989. The trial court imposed an agreed sentence of eight to ten years' incarceration on each count, ordered the sentences to run concurrently, credited Love with 5, 932 days of time served, and wrote on the sentencing entry that the entire sentence was considered served upon entry of the court's judgment. During Love's sentencing hearing, Love indicated that he understood that he would be credited with time served on these counts and that the time served would be counted from June 5, 1996-the date that he had initially been incarcerated.

{¶4} At the time that Love was sentenced in September 2012, the trial court conducted a sexual-offender-classification hearing under the Megan's Law version of R.C. Chapter 2950, and adjudicated Love a sexual predator. This appeal followed.

{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Love contends that the trial court erred when it classified him under Megan's Law because neither his crimes nor his convictions occurred when Megan's Law was in effect. In his second assignment of error, Love argues that, even if Megan's Law does apply, he is a "sexually oriented offender" by operation of law, and the trial court did not have jurisdiction to reclassify him. Neither argument has merit.

Love is Subject to Megan's Law

{¶6} The Megan's Law version of R.C. Chapter 2950 was in effect from 1997 until 2008. In State v. Wood, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120598, 2013-Ohio-2724, we recently held that Megan's Law applies to those defendants incarcerated for a sex offense during this time, regardless of when the offense had been committed. See State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570 (1998).

{¶7} Love contends that since his crimes occurred before Megan's Law was in effect and because his sentencing occurred after Megan's Law had been repealed, he is subject to the reporting requirements in effect when he committed his crimes in 1989.

{¶8} Love's argument ignores the record in this case. At Love's sentencing hearing, the trial court determined, and Love agreed, that he had been incarcerated for 5, 932 days on two counts of gross sexual imposition commencing June 5, 1996. Love may not simultaneously claim the benefit of 5, 932 days of "time served" and also claim that he did not serve time during those years. And because Love was incarcerated ...


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.