FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE Nos. 15CR092067, 15CR092068, 15CR092069,
GIOVANNA V. BREMKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and JENNIFER GOODALL,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
TEODOSIO, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Defendant-Appellant, London Chapman, appeals from the
judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This
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
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.
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.
Mr. Chapman now appeals from the trial court's judgment
and raises two assignments of error for our review.
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.
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