NEW: (# Failure to Register Technicality
NEW: Failure to Register a Sex Offense???
CAUTION: SORNA EFFECTIVE even if state has not enacted it
Plea Bargains: Santabello v New York
Blog also contains "Unfavorable" and "Informational" decisions and relevant news articles. All can be useful in framing arguments for new court actions. (i.e., avoid pitfalls or inform courts.) Or refuting charges, check facts of cases v yours.
Leagle is our main court decision resource.
Find State decisions by the Federal Circuit a State is in.

CAUTION: Decisions are meant to be educational.
For "Personal Life Decisions" consult with a lawyer.

Nelson v State

2-2-2012 Ohio:

Nelson v State
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant the state of Ohio appeals from the trial court order that granted summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee Anthony Nelson on his petition for relief from the application of "S.B. 10," commonly referred to as Ohio's version of the "Adam Walsh Act" (the "AWA").

{¶ 2} The state presents two assignments of error. The state argues that, as applied to Nelson, whose original conviction occurred out-of-state, the AWA is constitutional and does not violate either the separation of powers doctrine or the Ohio Constitution's Retroactivity Clause. The state concedes as to the first argument that this court has determined otherwise. Moreover, the state's second argument is rejected on the authority of State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108. Consequently, the state's assignments of error are overruled, and the trial court's order is affirmed.

{¶ 3} The record reflects Nelson filed his petition seeking relief from the application of the AWA in January 2008. He alleged that in 1977, he was convicted in North Carolina of an offense that the Ohio Attorney General ("OAG") "determined to be substantially equivalent to [the offense of] Rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02."

.................

{¶ 16} The foregoing language leaves no doubt that the AWA, as applied to

{¶ 17} Nelson, violates the Ohio Constitution's Retroactivity Clause. While this court recognized in Goggans that its view on this issue was in conflict with the First and Twelfth Districts (see Sewell v. State, 181 Ohio App.3d 280, 2009-Ohio-872, 908 N.E.2d 995, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.), and Boswell v. State, 12th Dist. No. CA2010-01-006, 2010-Ohio-3134, 2010 WL 2653379, ¶ 6), this court still decided that this district "continues to hold that it is the correct interpretation" on the issue. Goggans, 8th Dist. Nos. 96857-96862, 2011-Ohio-5932, 2011 WL 5825915, at ¶ 13.

{¶ 18} Accordingly, the state's second assignment of error also is overruled. {¶ 19} The trial court's order is affirmed.


It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.

The Ohio Supreme Court said in State v. Williams that AWA cannot be applied to anyone who committed his/her offense before January 1, 2008. And, that the regular Ohio Megan's Law may still be applicable. See a local Ohio lawyer for a CLEAR interpretation to your case. Further, take notice of what THIS APPELLATE court says, there is conflict between certain districts, that means where one lives in Ohio. And that this is a appeals court, not the Ohio Supreme court. eAdvocate

No comments: