State v. Bowlin
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Bowlin, 2010-Ohio-4274.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. MICHAEL BOWLIN Defendant-Appellant : : Appellate Case No. 23366 : : Trial Court Case No. 09-CRB-2655 : : (Criminal Appeal from Dayton : (Municipal Court) : : : ........... OPINION Rendered on the 10th day of September, 2010. ........... JOHN J. DANISH, Atty. Reg. #0046639, and STEPHANIE L. COOK, Atty. Reg. #0067101, by GARRETT P. BAKER, Atty. Reg. #0084416, City of Dayton Prosecutor s Office, 335 West Third Street, Room 372, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee SUSAN R. BRIDGMAN, Atty. Reg. #0047368, 4100 Tam O Shanter Way, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ............. BROGAN, J. {¶ 1} Michael Bowlin appeals from his conviction in the Dayton Municipal Court of sexual imposition. As a Tier I offender Bowlin was ordered to register with the Montgomery County Sheriff as required by R.C. 2950.07. Bowlin is also subject to the residency restrictions set forth in R.C. 2950.034. 2 {¶ 2} In his first assignment of error, appellant contends the registration requirements of R.C. Chapter 2950 constitute punishment as applied to Tier I sex offenders and offend the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Ohio Constitution. It, of course, makes no difference whether the registration requirement is punitive or remedial, if the law is being applied prospectively. The prohibition against ex post facto and retroactive legislation only involves laws sought to be applied by the State retroactively. S.B. 10 (the Adam Walsh Act) was enacted effective January 1, 2008. Bowlin was convicted in 2009 and ordered to register under the provisions of the 2008 legislation. The appellant s first assignment of error is Overruled. {¶ 3} Bowlin also argues that the residency restriction that he not live within 1,000 feet of a school violates his fundamental liberty right to live where he wishes as well as his right to privacy. This court and several Ohio appellate courts have rejected these claims. See State v. Mark Hall (June 19, 2009), Montgomery App. No. 22969. The appellant s second assignment of error is likewise Overruled. The judgment of the trial court is Affirmed. ............. DONOVAN, P.J., and GRADY, J., concur. Copies mailed to: John J. Danish Stephanie L. Cook Garrett P. Baker Susan R. Bridgman Hon. Deirdre E. Logan
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.
