-
{¶ 38} I reluctantly concur with the result reached by the majority in this case. However, I disagree with the reasoning expressed in the majority opinion as follows.
{¶ 39} First, Ohio courts have held that, in cases where the evidence that a defendant is "likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually oriented offenses" relates only to the defendant's underlying conviction, such evidence is insufficient to support a finding the defendant is a sexual predator. See State v. Ward (1999),
130 Ohio App.3d 551 ,561 , citing State v. Hicks (1998),128 Ohio App.3d 647 . Other than the facts of the underlying offense, the record in this case contains almost no evidence to support a determination appellant is a sexual predator. Accordingly, I would reverse on that basis, rather than comparing the proceedings in the trial court to the "model hearing" proposed in Eppinger, supra.{¶ 40} Second, it is undisputed that appellant committed a sexually oriented offense. The majority describes appellant's crimes as "horrific" and "cruel." Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a determination, based on the existing record, as to whether appellant should be classified as a sexual oriented offender or a habitual sex offender.
Document Info
Docket Number: No. WD-04-024.
Citation Numbers: 2005 Ohio 3358
Judges: PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
Filed Date: 6/30/2005
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021