Wilson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Wilson v. State, 2009-Ohio-6927.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY RICKY LEE WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, : : : - vs - CASE NO. CA2009-05-058 OPINION 12/30/2009 : STATE OF OHIO, Respondent-Appellee. : : CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 08-CV-70387 Donald E. Oda II, 130 East Mulberry Street, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for petitioner-appellant Rachel A. Hutzel, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, 500 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for respondent-appellee RINGLAND, J. {¶1} Petitioner-appellant, Ricky Lee Wilson, appeals a decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition challenging his sex offender reclassification without a hearing. For the reasons outlined below, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand. {¶2} In 1996, appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(5). In July 1997, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction filed Warren CA2009-05-058 a recommendation with the trial court that appellant be classified as a sexual predator. The court found that appellant was not a sexual predator as defined by R.C. 2950.01(E). In November 2007, appellant received written notice that he had been reclassified as a Tier III sex offender. In January 2008, appellant filed a petition challenging the reclassification. The trial court initially stayed the proceedings pending guidance from a higher court on Ohio's newly-enacted Adam Walsh Act. Following the issuance of this court's decision in State v. Williams, Warren App. No. CA2008-02-029, 2008-Ohio-6195, the state moved to dismiss appellant's petition. The trial court granted the motion, summarily dismissing appellant's petition without a hearing. Appellant timely appeals, raising eight assignments of error. {¶3} Assignment of Error No. 1: {¶4} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITIONER'S CLAIMS FOR RELIEF WITHOUT A HEARING." {¶5} Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition without a hearing. In State v. Brewer, Butler App. No. CA2009-02-041, 2009-Ohio-3157, this court held that a sex offender reclassified under Ohio's Adam Walsh Act is entitled to a hearing upon a timely and properly filed petition pursuant to the mandate of R.C. 2950.031(E). Id. at ¶16. The record indicates that appellant's petition was timely and properly filed. Therefore, on the basis of Brewer, we find that appellant was entitled to a hearing on his petition challenging his sex offender reclassification in accordance with R.C. 2950.031(E). {¶6} Appellant's first assignment of error is sustained. {¶7} Assignment of Error No. 2: {¶8} "THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF OHIO'S AWA VIOLATES THE PROHIBITION ON EX POST FACTO LAWS IN ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION." -2- Warren CA2009-05-058 {¶9} Assignment of Error No. 3: {¶10} "THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF OHIO'S AWA VIOLATES THE PROHIBITION ON RETROACTIVE LAWS IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 28 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION." {¶11} Assignment of Error No. 4: {¶12} "RECLASSIFICATION OF PETITIONER CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS' [sic] DOCTRINE." {¶13} Assignment of Error No. 5: {¶14} "RECLASSIFICATION OF PETITIONER CONSTITUES IMPERMISSIBLE MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT UNDER THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS." {¶15} Assignment of Error No. 6: {¶16} "THE RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS OF THE AWA VIOLATE DUE PROCESS." {¶17} Assignment of Error No. 7: {¶18} "PETITIONER CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO THE COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE AWA BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER PRE-AWA LAW." {¶19} Assignment of Error No. 8: {¶20} "RECLASSIFICATION OF PETITIONER CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF CONTRACT AND A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT UNDER THE OHIO AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS." {¶21} Based upon our resolution of appellant's first assignment of error, appellant's remaining assignments of error are moot. -3- Warren CA2009-05-058 {¶22} Judgment reversed and remanded. YOUNG, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur. -4- [Cite as Wilson v. State, 2009-Ohio-6927.]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
