State v. Bodyke
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Bodyke, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3737.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-3737 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BODYKE ET AL., APPELLANTS. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Bodyke, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3737.] Motion for reconsideration and/or clarification denied. (No. 2008-2502 Submitted July 6, 2010 Decided August 17, 2010.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Huron County, Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387. ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION __________________ {¶ 1} On June 3, 2010, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in this case. State v. Bodyke, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2010-Ohio-2424, ___ N.E.2d ___. {¶ 2} Appellee, state of Ohio, and amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General have filed a joint motion for reconsideration and/or clarification. {¶ 3} The motion for reconsideration and/or clarification is denied. BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR, and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO O DONNELL and CUPP, JJ., dissent. __________________ CUPP, J., dissenting. {¶ 4} I would grant the state s motion for clarification of this court s decision in State v. Bodyke, to clarify that Bodyke does not apply to cases in which there is no prior court order classifying the defendant into a sex-offender category that existed under Megan s Law. The majority decision in Bodyke states that it was based on the concern that R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032 require the attorney general to reclassify sex offenders whose classifications have already been adjudicated by a court and made the subject of a final order. Bodyke, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2010-Ohio-2424, ___ N.E.2d ___, at ¶ 61. To the extent that particular sex offenders have not been previously adjudicated by a court to be within a particular classification under prior law, those offenders are not affected by the Bodyke decision. I believe that the court should grant clarification for this limited purpose. {¶ 5} For these reasons, I dissent from the majority s decision to deny the motion for reconsideration or clarification. O DONNELL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. __________________ Russell V. Leffler, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Gamso, Helmick & Hoolahan and Jeffrey M. Gamso; and Hiltz, Wiedemann, Allton & Koch Co., L.P.A., and John D. Allton, for appellants. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor General, Alexandra T. Schimmer, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, David M. Lieberman, Deputy Solicitor, Christopher P. Conomy, Assistant Solicitor, and James A. Hogan, Assistant Attorney General, for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General. ______________________ 2
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.
