Saddler v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Saddler v. State, 2009-Ohio-4355.] COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RODNEY SADDLER Petitioner-Appellee -vsSTATE OF OHIO Respondent-Appellant : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Case No. 08-CA-316 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 08-CV-694D JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 25, 2009 APPEARANCES: For Petitioner-Appellee For Respondent-Appellant RODNEY SADDLER PRO SE Last known address Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield OH 44901 FRANK ARDIS, JR. KIRSTEN PSCHOLKA-GARTNER Richland County Prosecutor's Office 38 South Park Mansfield, OH 44902 [Cite as Saddler v. State, 2009-Ohio-4355.] Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Respondent-appellant the State of Ohio appeals a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, which found Senate Bill 10, Ohio s Sexual Offender classification and registration scheme, to be unconstitutional in its entirety. Petitioner-appellee is Derrick A. Stewart. Appellant assigns four errors to the trial court: {¶2} I. WHETHER BEYOND A REASONABKE [SIC] DOUBT, SENATE BILL 10 AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CITED BY THE TRIAL COURT ARE CLEARLY INCOMPATIBLE, AND WHETHER THERE IS NO SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE SENATE BILL 10 WOULD BE VALID. THE TRIAL COURT PURPORTED TO INVALIDATE THE LEGISLATION, RATHER THAN THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS ACTUALLY AT ISSUE IN THIS MATTER. HENCE, BY INVALIDATING THE ADAM WALSH ACT, THE COURT APPARENTLY PURPORTED TO INVALIDATE EVERY STATUTE [SIC] AMENDED BY THE SB 10, DESPITE THE NARROW CLAIM BEFORE IT. PROPERLY APPLY, OR SUBSTANTIATE THE COURT BELOW DID NOT DIVERGENCE FROM, THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. {¶3} II. WHETHER SENATE BILL 10 S LEGISLATIVE ADJUSTMENT TO THE FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF APPELLE S [SIC] PREEXISTING DUTY TO REGISTER RENDERED THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RETROACTIVE. A STATUTE FOUND TO BE RETROACTIVE IS ONLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF IT SIGNIFICANTLY BURDENS A VESTED SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, BUT NT IF IT IS REMEDIAL. AS THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD UNDER THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AMENDED BY THE SENATE BILL 10, THAT Richland County, Case No. 08-CA-316 3 FRAMEWORK IS REMEDIAL IN NATURE. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY EXPRESSED ITS INTENT THAT R.C. CHAPTER 2950, AS AMENDED, REMAIN REMEDIAL IN NATURE. {¶4} III. WHETHER SENATE BILL 10 S ADJUSTMENT TO THE FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF APPELLEE S PRE-EXISTING DUTY TO REGISTER CONSTITUTED SUCCESSIVE PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE. IT WAS, INSTEAD, A REMEDIAL, CIVIL STATUTE THAT DID NOT IMPACT OFFENDERS SENTENCES FOR THE CRIMES THEY COMMITTED. {¶5} IV. WHETHER A PLEA AGREEMENT BETWEEN AN OFFENDER AND THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY CREATED A VESTED, SETTLED EXPECTATION THAT THE OFFENDER S CLASSIFICATION WOULD NEVER CHANGE. CLASSIFICATIONS OF SB 10, AND PRIOR CLASSIFICATIONS THE IMPOSED PURSUANT TO STATUTE BY THE COURT, DO NOT, AND DID NOT, CREATE THE EXPECTATION THAT CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS WOULD NEVER AGAIN BE THE SUBJECT OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION. {¶6} Appellee was convicted of rape in Cuyahoga County. His petition does not state the date of conviction, nor whether it was the result of a plea agreement. {¶7} Appellee received a notice of new classification and registration duties under R.C. 2950.01 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 10, also known as the Adam Walsh Act . Appellee contested the reclassification, asserting the new legislation violates several provisions of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, and imposes new obligations and additional substantial burdens on him. He also alleged the change in registry requirements directly violates his original plea agreement. Richland County, Case No. 08-CA-316 4 {¶8} The trial court found Senate Bill 10 is unconstitutional both facially and as applied to appellee because it violates the prohibitions against both retroactive and ex post facto laws. The trial court cited its decision in Sigler v. State, Richland Common Pleas Case No. 07CV1863, and granted judgment in favor of appellee. {¶9} The State of Ohio appealed the matter to this court. I, II, III, & IV {¶10} In each assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in finding Senate Bill 10 to be unconstitutional on multiple grounds. We agree. {¶11} The court cited its decision in Sigler, supra, wherein it found Senate Bill 10 unconstitutional. However, this court has since reversed the court s decision. Sigler v. State, Richland App. No. 08-CA-79, 2009-Ohio-2010. In Sigler, we found, as courts across Ohio have repeatedly held, Senate Bill 10 is constitutional and does not violate prohibitions against retroactive or ex post facto laws. Id. at paragraph 89. {¶12} The appellant s assignment of error IV may be inapplicable here as to any plea bargain, but we find the prior classification system did not create the expectation that appellee will never be the subject of further legislative action. {¶13} In accord with our previous holding in Sigler, each of appellant s assignments of error is sustained. Richland County, Case No. 08-CA-316 5 {¶14} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, Ohio, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with law and consistent with this opinion. By Gwin, P.J., Edwards, J., and Delaney, J., concur _________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN _________________________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS _________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY WSG:clw 0805 [Cite as Saddler v. State, 2009-Ohio-4355.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RODNEY SADDLER Petitioner-Appellee -vsSTATE OF OHIO Respondent-Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY CASE NO. 08-CA-316 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, Ohio, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with law and consistent with this opinion. Costs to appellee. _________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN _________________________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS _________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY

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.