MAJOR SUPREME COURT DECISION AFFECTS OHIO SEX OFFENDERS
In probably the most important Ohio Supreme Court decision pertaining to sex offenders, the state’s highest court announced on July 13, 2011 that Senate Bill 10, effective January 1, 2008, is unconstitutional as applied to offenders who committed their offenses prior to the effective date. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that application of the law to offenders who committed their offenses prior to its enactment violates the Ohio Constitution’s prohibition against the passing of retroactive laws.
In State v. Williams (2011), 129 Ohio St. 3d 344, ¶22, Justice Pfeifer, writing for the majority, opined: “We conclude that S.B. 10, as applied to Williams and any other sex offender who committed an offense prior to the enactment of S.B. 10, violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly from enacting retroactive laws.” The Court determined that S.B. 10 is punitive and imposes “new and additional burdens, duties, obligations or liabilities as to a past transaction.” Id. at ¶9.
Subsequent to its decision in Williams, the Ohio Supreme Court applied its holding to juvenile sex offenders whose offenses occurred prior to the enactment of S.B. 10. In re D.J.S. (2011),130 Ohio St. 3d 257.
This type of law is commonly referred to as an “ex post facto” law, which means, “after the fact.” The United States Constitution also contains prohibitions against the enactment of ex post facto laws. The Court’s ruling has tremendous implications for sex offenders.
The most important effect is that any sex offender, adult or juvenile, who was sentenced under the registration provisions of S.B. 10 and whose offense occurred prior to the effective date has an immediate remedy in the court of his/her conviction or disposition. That remedy is a motion for re-sentencing or a motion for new disposition hearing.
The Supreme Court’s ruling means that the law is a null and void as applied retroactively. Any offender who is currently reporting under the provisions of S.B. 10 for an offense committed prior to the effective date should seek redress in the court of conviction or juvenile disposition.[1] The offender should be re-sentenced under the registration provisions that were in effect at the time he/she committed the sex offense. The offender may want to consult with an attorney about filing the motion for re-sentencing.
[1] This procedure is unnecessary if the offender has already been notified by the court of conviction/disposition that he is being re-sentenced and will be notified of a new sentencing/hearing date.