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. Chapman

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain

September 3, 2019

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
LONDON CHAPMAN Appellant

          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE Nos. 15CR092067, 15CR092068, 15CR092069, 15CR092070, 15CR092071

          GIOVANNA V. BREMKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and JENNIFER GOODALL, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          TEODOSIO, PRESIDING JUDGE.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, London Chapman, appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} Mr. Chapman pleaded guilty to eleven counts of felony non-support, having failed to pay child support in six different cases for several years. The trial court notified the parties that it intended to impose an anti-procreation condition upon Mr. Chapman as part of his sentence and gave them an opportunity to brief the constitutionality of such a condition. It ultimately imposed a sentence of five years of community control and ordered, as a condition of that sentence, that Mr. Chapman "make all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman during the community control period or until such time that [he] can prove to the Court that he is able to provide support for his children he already has and is in fact supporting the children or until a change in conditions warrant the lifting of this condition."

         {¶3} Mr. Chapman appealed from his sentence and challenged the anti-procreation condition on both constitutional and non-constitutional grounds. See State v. Chapman, 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 16CA010969, 16CA01070, 16CA01071, 16CA01072, 16CA01073 & 16CA01074, 2018-Ohio-343. We rejected his non-constitutional challenges, but declined to review the remainder of his argument. Id. at ¶ 9-12. Because the trial court's judgment entry did not address Mr. Chapman's constitutional challenges, we reversed and remanded the matter for the trial court to consider his constitutional arguments in the first instance. Id. at ¶ 12.

         {¶4} On remand, Mr. Chapman filed an additional brief in support of his argument, and the trial court conducted a short hearing. The court ultimately rejected Mr. Chapman's arguments and found its anti-procreation condition to be constitutionally sound. It, therefore, sentenced Mr. Chapman to five years of community control and ordered him subject to the same anti-procreation condition that it had imposed in its original judgment entry. It further ordered him to pay restitution and past court-ordered child support arrearages in each of his six cases. The total amount that the court imposed exceeded $220, 000.

         {¶5} Mr. Chapman now appeals from the trial court's judgment and raises two assignments of error for our review.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE

THE TRIAL COURT INFRINGED APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTIONS ONE, TWO, AND SIXTEEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER THE NINTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION TWENTY OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION WHEN IT IMPOSED A PROBATION CONDITION ON APPELLANT TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO AVOID CONCEIVING ANOTHER CHILD WHILE HE IS ON PROBATION.

         {¶6} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Chapman argues that the trial court erred when it ordered him to comply with the anti-procreation condition of his community control. He challenges the condition on both non-constitutional and ...


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.