State v. Johnson , 2011 Ohio 2069 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Johnson, 
    2011-Ohio-2069
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
    STATE OF OHIO                                     :
    Plaintiff-Appellee                        :    C.A. CASE NO. 24029
    vs.                                               :    T.C. CASE NO. 09CR4143
    ROMAS D. JOHNSON                                  :    (Criminal Appeal from
    Common Pleas Court)
    Defendant-Appellant               :
    .........
    OPINION
    Rendered on the 29th day of April, 2011.
    .........
    Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Pros. Attorney; Johnna M. Shia, Asst. Pros. Attorney, Atty. Reg.
    No.0067685, P.O. Box 972, Dayton, OH 45422
    Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Marshall G. Lachman, Atty. Reg. No.0076791, 75 North Pioneer Boulevard, Springboro, OH
    45066
    Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
    .........
    GRADY, P.J.:
    {¶ 1} Defendant, Romas Johnson, was convicted on his plea of no contest of a
    violation of R.C. 2950.05(A)(F)(1), a first degree felony, for failing to provide notice of his
    change of residence address to the sheriff at least twenty days prior to that change, a
    requirement imposed on Defendant as a Tier III sex offender by R.C. 2950.05(A). Defendant
    2
    was sentenced to a three year term of incarceration. Defendant appealed his conviction.
    {¶ 2} Defendant argues that he cannot be criminally liable for the offense of which
    he was convicted because his status as a Tier III sex offender is the product of an
    unconstitutional reclassification by the Attorney General from Defendant’s prior classification
    as a sexual offender that a court imposed in 1994. Those statutory reclassifications were held
    unconstitutional in State v. Bodyke, 
    126 Ohio St.3d 266
    , 
    2010-Ohio-2424
    . Bodyke further
    ordered such person’s prior sexual offender classifications reinstated.
    {¶ 3} R.C. 2901.21(A) establishes the standard for a finding of criminal liability. It
    provides that “a person is not guilty of an offense unless both of the following apply:
    {¶ 4} “(1) The person’s liability is based on conduct that includes either a voluntary
    act, or an omission to perform an act or duty that the person is capable of performing;
    {¶ 5} “(2) the person has the requisite degree of culpability for each element as to
    which a culpable mental state is specified by the section defining the offense.”
    {¶ 6} The State concedes that Defendant’s reclassification was unconstitutional, per
    Bodyke. The State further argues that, nevertheless, because the notification requirement
    Defendant violated was and is imposed by R.C. 2950.05(A), in both its former and current
    versions, Defendant remains criminally liable for the conduct of which he was convicted.
    {¶ 7} Former R.C. 2950.05(A) required persons classified as sexual offenders to
    notify the sheriff “at least twenty days prior to changing the offender’s . . . residence address.”
    Former R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) provided: “No person who is required to notify a sheriff of a
    change of address pursuant to division (A) of this section shall fail to notify the appropriate
    sheriff in accordance with that division.” A violation of former R.C. 2950.05 was a felony of
    3
    the third degree. R.C. 2950.99 (A)(1)(a)(i).
    {¶ 8} R.C. 2950.05 was amended in 2007 by S.B. 10, which became effective on
    January 1, 2008. In its current form, R.C. 2950.05(A) provides that persons classified as Tier
    III sexual offenders “shall provide notice of any change of residence . . . to the sheriff”, and
    that “the offender shall provided the written notice at least twenty days prior to changing the
    address of the residence.” R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) provides: “No person who is required to notify
    a sheriff of a change of address pursuant to division (A) of this section . . . shall fail to notify
    the appropriate sheriff in accordance with that division.” A violation of R.C. 2950.05 is a
    felony of the first degree. R.C. 2950.99(A)(1)(a)(i).
    {¶ 9} In State v. Milby, Montgomery App. No. 23798, 
    2010-Ohio-6344
    , on the same
    facts, we held that because the prohibited conduct in failing to give the required prior
    notification did not change when R.C. 2950.05 was amended, the defendant had an ongoing
    duty that neither the amendment of that section nor the holding in Bodyke had changed.
    Therefore, the defendant could be found criminally liable for his conduct in failing to notify,
    based on the prior sexual offender classification to which the defendant was reinstated per
    Bodyke. However, because the related amendment of R.C. 2950.99(A)(1)(a)(i) changed the
    violation from a third degree felony to a first degree felony, of which the defendant had been
    convicted, we reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for resentencing.
    {¶ 10} We find, on the authority of Milby, that the trial court did not err when it found
    Defendant Johnson guilty of a violation of R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) for his failure to notify the
    sheriff at least twenty days prior to Defendant’s change of his residence address. However,
    per Milby, we find that the trial court erred when it convicted Defendant of a first degree
    4
    felony and sentenced him accordingly, instead of finding Defendant guilty of a third degree
    felony.
    {¶ 11} The assignment of error is overruled, in part, and sustained, in part.
    Defendant’s sentence will be reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for
    resentencing.
    FROELICH, J. And BROGAN, J., concur.
    (Hon. James A. Brogan, retired from the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting by
    assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.)
    Copies mailed to:
    Johnna M. Shia, Esq.
    Marshall G. Lachman, Esq.
    Hon. Barbara P. Gorman