Peters v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Peters v. State, 2009-Ohio-6928.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY JERRY PETERS, Petitioner-Appellant, : : : - vs - CASE NO. CA2009-06-075 OPINION 12/30/2009 : STATE OF OHIO, Respondent-Appellee. : : CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 08-CV-70459 Thomas G. Eagle, 3386 N. State Route 123, 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, Jerry Peters, 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 2000, appellant was convicted of corruption of a minor and classified as a sexually-oriented offender pursuant to former R.C. 2950.01. In November 2007, appellant Warren CA2009-06-075 received written notice that he had been reclassified as a Tier II sex offender with the corresponding 25-year registration requirement. 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, 2008Ohio-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 a single assignment of error: {¶3} THE "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION TO APPEAL APPELLANT'S RECLASSIFICATION AND CHANGE IN REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS." {¶4} In his sole assignment of error, appellant raises eight issues for the court's review. Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition without a hearing. In the remaining issues for review, appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Act. {¶5} 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 sole assignment of error is sustained with respect to the reclassification hearing. All remaining issues are moot. {¶7} Judgment reversed and remanded. YOUNG, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur. -2- [Cite as Peters v. State, 2009-Ohio-6928.]
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.
