Summary
In Williams, the court held that "imposing the current registration requirements on a sex offender whose crime was committed prior to the enactment of S.B. No. 10 is punitive," and the court thus concluded that "S.B. 10, as applied to defendants who committed sex offenses prior to its enactment, violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly from passing retroactive laws."
Summary of this case from State v. SmithOpinion
No. 4981.
2011-10-20
In re CASES HELD FOR THE DECISION IN STATE v. WILLIAMS.
[Ohio St.3d 254] {¶ 1} The following cases were held for the decision in State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108. The judgments of the courts of appeals are reversed, and the causes are remanded for application of Williams.
[Ohio St.3d 255] {¶ 2} 2009–0045. State v. Swank, Lake App. No. 2008–L–019, 2008-Ohio-6059, 2008 WL 4964659.
{¶ 3} 2009–0150. State v. Countryman, Washington App. No. 08CA12, 2008-Ohio-6700, 2008 WL 5265679.
{¶ 4} 2009–0454. State v. Fisher, Summit App. No. 24116, 2009-Ohio-332, 2009 WL 187958.
{¶ 5} 2009–0560. State v. Rabel, Cuyahoga App. No. 91280, 2009-Ohio-350, 2009 WL 205865.
{¶ 6} 2009–0645. Holcomb v. State, Logan App. Nos. 8–08–23, 8–08–24, 8–08–25, and 8–08–26, 2009-Ohio-782, 2009 WL 427616.
{¶ 7} 2009–0777. State v. Gilfillan, Franklin App. No. 08AP–317, 2009-Ohio-1104, 2009 WL 638264.
{¶ 8} 2009–0840. State v. Hartman, Cuyahoga App. No. 91040, 2009-Ohio-1069, 2009 WL 626089.
{¶ 9} 2009–0863. State v. Omiecinski, Cuyahoga App. No. 90510, 2009-Ohio-1066, 2009 WL 626114.
{¶ 10} 2009–1024. State v. Blanchard, Cuyahoga App. No. 90935, 2009-Ohio-1357, 2009 WL 792360.
{¶ 11} 2009–1049. Toney v. State, 182 Ohio App.3d 331, 2009-Ohio-1881, 912 N.E.2d 1137.
{¶ 12} 2009–1227. State v. Franklin, 182 Ohio App.3d 410, 2009-Ohio-2664, 912 N.E.2d 1197.
{¶ 13} 2009–1419. State v. Irvin, Ross App. No. 08CA3057, 2009-Ohio-3128, 2009 WL 1830759.
{¶ 14} 2009–1493. State v. Gresham, Montgomery App. No. 22766, 2009-Ohio-3305, 2009 WL 1914619.
{¶ 15} 2009–1588. State v. Marks, Ashtabula App. No. 2008–A–0048, 2009-Ohio-3790, 2009 WL 2356812.
{¶ 16} 2009–1604. State v. Day, Adams App. Nos. 08CA865 and 08CA866, 2009-Ohio-3755, 2009 WL 2332084.
{¶ 17} 2009–1716. State v. Irvin, Ross App. No. 08CA3056, 2009-Ohio-4181, 2009 WL 2521215.
{¶ 18} 2009–1811. McGuire v. State, Richland App. No. 08 CA 227, 2009-Ohio-4397, 2009 WL 2625843.
{¶ 19} 2009–1844. State v. Howard, Ross App. No. 08CA 3086, 2009-Ohio-4496, 2009 WL 2762760.
[Ohio St.3d 256] {¶ 20} 2009–2200. State v. Kenney, Franklin App. No. 09AP–231, 2009-Ohio-5584, 2009 WL 3401753.
{¶ 21} 2010–0289. Caes v. State, Warren App. No. CA2009–07–095, 2009-Ohio-6920, 2009 WL 5155092.
{¶ 22} 2010–0329. State v. Taylor, Athens App. No. 09CA22, 2010-Ohio-141, 2010 WL 200835.
{¶ 23} 2010–0627. Boernke v. State, Warren App. No. CA2009–06–070, 2010-Ohio-737, 2010 WL 705167.
{¶ 24} 2010–1882. Green v. State, Hamilton App. No. C–090650, 2010-Ohio-4371, 2010 WL 3610203.
{¶ 25} 2010–1911. Young v. State, Hamilton App. No. C–090771.
{¶ 26} 2010–1914. Feltha v. State, Hamilton App. No. C–090796.
{¶ 27} 2010–1915. Beck v. State, Hamilton App. No. C–090891.
{¶ 28} 2010–1917. Phifer v. State, Hamilton App. No. C–090861.
{¶ 29} 2010–1942. Sparks v. State, Hamilton App. No. C–100063.
{¶ 30} 2010–2157. Mitchell v. State, Hamilton App. No. C–100061.
{¶ 31} 2011–0226. State v. Wade, Franklin App. No. 10AP–159, 2010-Ohio-6395, 2010 WL 5543880.
O'CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, CUPP, and McGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
O'DONNELL, J., dissents and would affirm the judgments of the courts of appeals.
{¶ 32} The following case was held for the decision in State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108. It is hereby dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.
{¶ 33} 2009–1858. State v. Menton, Mahoning App. No. 07 MA 70, 2009-Ohio-4640, 2009 WL 2859276.
O'CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, CUPP, and McGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
O'DONNELL, J., dissents.
[Ohio St.3d 257] {¶ 34} The following cases were held for the decision in State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108. They are hereby dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.
{¶ 35} 2011–0312. Hartley v. State, Licking App. No. 10 CA 65, 2011-Ohio-96, 2011 WL 198997.
{¶ 36} 2011–0442. Clager v. State, Licking App. No. 10 CA 49, 2010-Ohio-6074, 2010 WL 5110082.
{¶ 37} 2011–0586. Core v. State, 191 Ohio App.3d 651, 2010-Ohio-6292, 947 N.E.2d 250.