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. Amos

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton

November 8, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RONALD AMOS, Defendant-Appellee.

         Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Trial Nos. B-1503921, B-1402018

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

          Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Julie Kahrs Nessler, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellee.

          OPINION

          Cunningham, Presiding Judge.

         Facts and Procedure

         1. The Juvenile Case

         {¶1} On January 26, 2010, defendant-appellee Ronald Amos was adjudicated delinquent for committing an act which, had it been committed by an adult, would have constituted the offense of rape. Amos was subsequently committed to the Department of Youth Services ("DYS"). On March 30, 2011, he was released from DYS, placed on "parole, "[1]and, by agreement, classified as a Tier I juvenile-offender registrant. The court's entry stated, "Upon completion of the dispositions that were made for the sexually oriented offense upon which the order is based, a hearing will be conducted, and the order and any determinations included in the order are subject to modification or termination pursuant to ORC 2152.84 and ORC 2152.85." Amos was discharged from parole on June 24, 2013. On July 2, 2014, in the absence of Amos, the juvenile court held a "completion of disposition hearing, " and ordered that the "Prior order of 3/30/2011 determining defendant to be a Tier I registrant remains in effect."

         2. Appeal No. C-160717

         {¶2} On July 27, 2015, in the case numbered B-1503921, Amos was indicted for failing to notify the sheriff of an address change. Amos filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that he had no duty to register as a sex offender under RC. Chapter 2950 because the juvenile court had no authority to classify him over a year after his juvenile disposition had been completed and his parole terminated. The common pleas court agreed and dismissed the indictment, holding that the juvenile court had no authority to conduct an untimely completion-of-disposition hearing, and therefore, the juvenile court's July 2, 2014 order classifying Amos as a Tier I sex offender was void and Amos had no duty to register as a sex offender. The state has appealed from the common pleas court's judgment in the appeal numbered C-160717.

         3. Appeal No. C-160718

         {¶3} After the trial court entered its order in the case numbered B-1503921 finding that Amos had no duty to register as a sex offender, Amos filed a motion to withdraw his plea and dismiss the indictment in the case numbered B-1402018. In that case, Amos had pleaded guilty to failing to provide notice of an address change. The common pleas court granted Amos's motion to withdraw his plea and dismissed the indictment. The state has appealed the court's judgment in the appeal numbered C-160718. The appeals have been consolidated.

         Analysis

         {¶4} The state's first assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment in the case numbered B-1503921.

         {¶5} The state first argues that a motion to dismiss the indictment was not the appropriate vehicle to challenge Amos's duty to register. In State v. Palmer, 131 Ohio St.3d 278, 2012-Ohio-580, 964 N.E.2d 406, ¶ 23, the Ohio Supreme Court stated, "Under Crim.R. 12(C)(2), trial courts may judge before trial whether an indictment is defective. Without a doubt, an indictment is defective if it alleges violations of R.C. Chapter 2950 by a person who is not subject to that chapter. There is no set of circumstances under which such a person can violate the law's requirements." The court went on to say that "such a determination does not embrace the general issue for trial, " and that the trial court is "well within its authority" to dismiss an indictment "where the law simply does not apply." Id. at ¶ 24. Therefore, Amos's motion to dismiss the indictment was the proper vehicle to challenge whether he had a duty to register under R.C. Chapter 2950.

         {¶6} We now turn to the issue of whether Amos had a duty to register. R.C. 2152.83(A)(1) provides that the juvenile court shall issue at the time of disposition or, "if the court commits the child for the delinquent act to the custody of a secure facility, shall issue at the time of the child's release from the secure facility, " an order classifying the child as a juvenile-offender registrant. R.C. 2152.84(A)(1) provides that when a juvenile court issues an order under R.C. 2152.83 classifying the juvenile as a juvenile-offender registrant, "upon completion of the disposition of that child made for the sexually oriented offense or the child-victim oriented offense on which the juvenile offender registrant order was based, the judge * * * shall conduct a hearing to review the effectiveness of the disposition * * * to determine whether the prior classification" should be continued, terminated, or modified. Both R.C. 2152.83(A)(1) and 2152.84(A)(1) refer to when each classification hearing must be held in mandatory terms, stating that the juvenile court shall hold an initial hearing at the time of disposition or at the time of the juvenile's release from a secure facility, and that the court shall hold a second hearing upon the completion of disposition.

         {¶7} In In re Antwon C, 182 Ohio App.3d 237, 2009-Ohio-2567, 912 N.E.2d 182, ...


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.