State v Ameem

4-18-2013 Ohio:

State v Ameem
2013-Ohio-1555

When defendant-appellant Ansuri Ameem moved to Ohio, his prior California conviction for sexual assault with a foreign object and pandering classified him as a sexually-oriented offender under the former Megan's Law. He was required to register his address annually for a period of ten years.

In July 2007, the attorney general reclassified Ameem as a Tier III offender under the Adam Walsh Act — a reclassification that required him to register his address every 90 days for life.

He failed that obligation in July 2010 and was indicted on a single count of failing to register his address. Ameem sought dismissal of the indictment on grounds that his 2007 reclassification was unconstitutional under State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753.

The court denied the motion to dismiss, Ameem pleaded no contest to the charge of failing to register, and this appeal followed. We find that the court erred by refusing to grant the motion to dismiss.

... ... ...

Ameem was charged with failing to register as required by R.C. 2950.04(E). While both Megan's Law and the Adam Walsh Act contain similar reporting requirements, the time periods under each law are quite different: as a sexually oriented offender under Megan's Law, Ameem had the duty to register on a yearly basis for ten years; as a Tier III offender under the Adam Walsh Act, he had the duty to register every 90 days for life.

It is unclear from the record whether Ameem was in violation of Megan's Law at the time the grand jury returned the indictment charging him with a violation of the Adam Walsh Act. We therefore sustain the assignment of error.

This cause is reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

---

Appeals Court Reverses Sex Offender’s Conviction, Can’t Be Reclassified under the Adam Walsh Act

4-22-2013 Ohio:

The Eighth District Court of Appeals ruled April 18 that a sex offender from California who moved to Ohio cannot be reclassified as a Tier III offender under the Adam Walsh Act.

Ansuri Ameen was required to register his address annually for a period of ten years when he first moved to Ohio under the former Megan’s Law. In July 2007, the attorney general reclassified Ameem under the Adam Walsh Act, which required him to register his address every 90 days for life.

Ameen failed to register in July 2010 and was indicted on a single count of failing to register his address. Ameen tried to get the charge dismissed, arguing that his 2007 reclassification was unconstitutional under the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court case State v. Bodyke, which held that the attorney general’s reclassification of an offender from Megan’s Law to the Adam Walsh Act “violated the separation of powers doctrine because it would allow the executive branch to review a decision made by the judicial branch.”

The state argued that Ameen’s case is different than Bodyke because Ameem’s classification was made in California and not in Ohio.

Administrative Judge Melody J. Stewart wrote in the appeals court’s unanimous decision that the Eighth District Court of Appeals has “repeatedly rejected the argument that there is a distinction between in-state and out-of-state offenders.”

Judge Stewart found that Ameen’s case is also not affected by the December 2012 Ohio Supreme Court decision State v. Brunning, in which the court held that “despite an offender who was originally classified under Megan’s Law being wrongly reclassified under the Adam Walsh Act, the state could still maintain a prosecution for a violation of the reporting requirements as long as the alleged violation also constituted a violation of Megan’s Law.”

Judge Stewart noted that Brunning was charged with failing to comply with a change of address requirement that was the same under both Megan’s Law and the Adam Walsh Act, while Ameen is required to register annually for 10 years under Megan’s Law, compared to every 90 days for life under the Adam Walsh Act.

Judges Mary J. Boyle and Tim McCormack concurred in the April 18 opinion that reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. ..Source.. by Jenna Gant