of appellant state of ohio memorandum in … › pdf_viewer › pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=649684.pdfteri...
TRANSCRIPT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
DANIEL MCCOSTLIN,
Petitioner-Appellee,
V.
STATE OF OHIO,
Respondent-Appellant.
Case No. ® 9 --° 14 9 8
On Appeal from theLake County Court of Appeals,Eleventh Appellate District
Court of Appeals Case No. 2008-L-1 17
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIONOF APPELLANT STATE OF OHIO
CHARLES E. COULSON (0008667)PROSECUTING ATTORNEYLAKE COUNTY, OHIO
Teri R. Daniel (0082157) (COUNSEL OF RECORD)ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEYAdministration Building105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490Painesville Ohio 44077(440) 350-2683 Fax (440) [email protected]
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, STATE OF OHIO
William T. McGinty (0009285)McGinty, Hilow & Spellacy Co., LPA614 West Superior Avenue, Suite 1300Cleveland, Ohio 44113(216) 344-9220 Fax (216) 664-6999
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, DANIEL MCCOSTLIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREATGENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONALQUESTION .......................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Proposition of Law No. 1: RECLASSIFICATION OF A SEX OFFENDER,PURSUANT TO S.B. 10, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THESEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CONCLUSION ....................................................... 4
PROOF OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
APPENDIX Appx. Page
Opinion of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals(June 30,2009) .................................................... A-1
Judgment Entry of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals(June 30, 2009) ................................................ A-11
i
EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLICOR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVESA SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
In McCostlin v. State, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-117, 2009-Ohio-4079, the Eleventh
District Court of Appeals misapplied longstanding principles of constitutional law and
declared that the provisions of S.B. 10 were unconstitutional. In a three-opinion decision,
the court of appeals reversed the decision of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas
finding that reclassification of a defendant pursuant to S.B. 10 was constitutional. Through
its decision, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals created an inconsistency both within the
district and among the district courts of appeals, ignored precedent from this Court, and
tied the hands of the State in its efforts to protect the community.
This Court should accept jurisdiction for three important reasons. First, there is a
constitutional provision at issue in this case, and the interpretation of this provision is the
pivotal determination that must be made by this Court. Second, the conflicts created by
this decision must be resolved for an effective administration of justice. Third, the issues
in this case have far-reaching implications. Presently, there are 18,365 sex offenders in
the State of Ohio, of which 288 reside in Lake County. See eSorn, Office of the Ohio
Attorney General, http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us.
For these reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Courtaccept
jurisdiction in this case in order to resolve the constitutional questions involving the
application of S.B. 10. Because State v. Bodyke, Case No. 2008-2502 (accepted April 8,
2009), raises the same constitutional issues that this case presents, the State requests that
1
this Court accept jurisdiction and hold this case in abeyance until this Court decides
Bodyke.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Daniel McCostlin pleaded "guilty" to one count of Sexual Battery, a felony of the
third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.03 in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No.
CR-06-477700. Prior to the enactment of Ohio's Adam Walsh Act, McCostlin was found
to be a Sexually Oriented Offender and was therefore subject to registration verification
requirements set forth in the former version of R.C. Sections 2950.04 through 2950.06 for
a period of ten years. He was reclassified as a Tier III Offender With Notification pursuant
to the new version of R.C. Chapter 2950 with reporting requirements for his lifetime.
On January 24, 2008, McCostlin filed a petition to contest his reclassification as a
violation of his constitutional rights and a motion for a preliminary injunction. The State
responded to his pleadings, and McCostlin's motion for a preliminary injunction was
granted. A hearing regarding McCostlin's petition was held on June 30, 2008. Having
considered the petition and its accompanying documents, as well as the State's response,
in addition to statements by the parties, and all relevant information relative to the
application of S.B. 10 to McCostlin, the trial court found that McCostlin was unable to
prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that his new registration requirements did not
apply in the manner specified by the Attorney General. Thus, McCostlin was properly
reclassified as a Tier III Offender.
McCostlin filed an appeal, raising one assignment of error relating to the
constitutionality of S.B. 10. After the issues were briefed and oral arguments were held,
2
the Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that S.B. 10 violated the
Separation of Powers Doctrine.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW
PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. I
RECLASSIFICATION OF A SEX OFFENDER, PURSUANT TO S.B. 10,DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OFPOWERS DOCTRINE.
On August 17, 2009, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals issued its opinion in
McCostlin v. State, wherein three judges provided three different analyses regarding the
constitutionality of S. B. 10. The majority determined that law regarding finality ofjudgments
mandated reversal on the grounds of separation of powers and res judicata. But in so
finding, the Court of Appeals created a conflict not only within the Eleventh District, but also
within many other appellate districts. Specifically, the appellate court held that the
defendant's reclassification pursuantto S.B. 10 constitutes a violation ofthe separation of
powers doctrine. This holding is in conflict with the following decisions from other Ohio
district courts of appeals: Seweli v. State, 1s' Dist. No. C-080503, 2009-Ohio-2335; In re
Smith, 3`a Dist. No. 1-07-58, 2008-Ohio-3234; State v. Randlett, 4'h Dist. No. 08CA3046,
2009-Ohio-112; In re Adrian R., 51" Dist. No. 08-CA-17, 2008-Ohio-6581; Montgomery v.
Leffler, 6'h Dist. No. H-08-011, 2008-Ohio-6397; State v. Byers, 7`h Dist. No. 07CO39, 2008-
Ohio-5051; In re J.M., 8'" Dist. No. 91800, 2009-Ohio-2880; State v. Reinhardt, 9'h Dist. No.
08CA0012-M, 2009-Ohio-1297; State v. Gilfillan, 10`h Dist. No. 08AP-317, 2009-Ohio-1104;
In re A.R., 12'h Dist. No. CA2008-03-036, 2008-Ohio-6566.
3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, this case involves matters of public and great
general interest and is a substantial constitutional question. Appellant respectfully requests
that this Honorable Court grant jurisdiction and hear this case so that the important issues
may be reviewed.
Respectfully submitted,
By: Charles E. Coulson, Prosecuting Attorney
By:Teri R. D^ni^082157)Assistant Prosecuting AttorneyCounsel of Record
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTSTATE OF OHIO
Administration Building105 Main StreetP.O. Box 490Painesville, Ohio 44077(440) 350-2683 Fax (440) 350-2585
4
PROOF OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant, State
of Ohio, was sent by regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to counsel for the appellee,
William McGinty, Esquire, 614 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44113, and,
pursuant to S.Ct.R. XIV, Section 2, the Ohio Public Defender, Timothy Young, 250 East
Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, Ohio 43215, on this day of August, 2009.
Teri R^. Diel (0082157)Assist^n Prosecuting Attorney
TRD/klb
5
APPENDIX
THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
DANIEL MCCOSTLIN, . O P I N I O N
Petitioner-Appellant -ws° s O ASE NO. 2008-L-117
q <: ' s s:rw Ai'?EikLS- vs -
STATE OF OHIO,AUG 1 7200911.t-.aAFEN G. KELLY
^'rv°, vHioRespondent-Appellee: <o
Civil Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 08 M 000032.
Judgment: Reversed.
William T. McGinty, 614 Superior Avenue, #1300, Cleveland, OH 44113 (ForPetitioner-Appellant).
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor,105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Respondent-Appellee).
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
{11} Appellant, Daniel McCostlin, appeals the judgment of the Lake County
Court of Common Pleas, denying his Petition to Contest Application of the Adam Walsh
Act. The fundamental principle of the "separation of powers" doctrine, as propounded
by our forefathers in the United States Constitution and expressed in the Ohio
Constitution, is inviolate, and, therefore, mandates reversal of the decision of the court
below. However, McCostlin must still comply with the notification and registration
requirements of a sexually oriented offender as mandated in his original sentence.
A-1
{¶2} On February 2, 2007, McCostlin was convicted in Case No. CR-06-
477700-A of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas of Sexual Battery, a felony
of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.03.
{¶3} McCostlin was sentenced to serve a one-year prison term, and ordered to
register annually for a period of ten years as a sexually oriented offender,
(¶4} On or about December 1, 2007, McCosUin received a Notice of New
Classification and Registration Duties from the Office of the Attorney General.
McCostlin was advised that, under the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act, he is now
classified as a Tier III Sex Offender.
{¶5} On January 24, 2008, McCostlin filed a Petition to Contest Application of
the Adam Walsh Act in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, the county in which
he resides and currently registers. McCostlin argued that his reclassification as a Tier
III Sex Offender under the Adam Walsh Act was unconstitutional.
{¶6} On June 30, 2008, an oral hearing was held before the trial court on
McCostljn's Petition.
{17} On July 2, 2008, the trial court issued its Judgment Entry, denying
McCostlin's Petition and advising him of his duty to register as a Tier lll Sexual Offender
with the sheriff of the county in which he resides, works, and/or has established a place.
of education, with in-person verification for the remainder of his life.
{¶8} On July 21, 2008, McCostlin filed his Notice of Appeal and raised the
following assignment of error: "The trial court erred by denying defendant-appellant [sic]
his petition and ordering the reclassification of his 'sexual offender' status to a Tier III
status under the unconstitutional retroactive application of the Adam Walsh Act."
A-22
{9} Within this sole assignment of error, McCostlin challenges the
constitutionality of amended Revised Code Chapter 2950 on the following grounds: "the
retroactive application of Ohio's Adam Walsh Act violates the prohibition on ex post
facto laws in Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution"; "the retroactive
application of the Adam Walsh Act violates the prohibition on retroactive laws in Article
II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution which forbids the enactment of certain retroactive
laws"; "the reclassification of [McCostlin] constitutes a violation of the separation of
powers' [sic] doctrine by removing the judiciary's authority to classify sexual offenders
as the courts saw fit"; and "reclassification of [McCostlin] constitutes a breach of
contract and a violation of the right to contract under the Ohio and United States
Constitutions."
{110} We shall consider the separation of powers argument first, as it is
determinative of this appeal.
{111} "Although the Ohio Constitution does not contain explicit language
establishing the doctrine of separation of powers, it is inherent in the constitutional,
framework of government defining the scope of authority conferred upon the three
separate branches of government." State v. Sterling, 113 Ohio St.3d 255, 2007-Ohio-
1790, at ¶22. "The essential principle underlying the policy of the division of powers of
government into three departments is that powers properly belonging to one of the
departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other
departments, and further that none of them ought to possess directly or indirectly an
overruling influence over the others." State ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metro. Park Dist.
(1929), 120 Ohio St. 464, 473.
A-33
{112} The separation of powers doctrine limits the ability of the General
Assembly to exercise the powers of and exert an influence over the judicial branch of
government. "The administration of justice by the judicial branch of the government
cannot be impeded by the other branches of the government in the exercise of their
respective powers." State ex re!. Johnston v. Taulbee (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 417, at
paragraph one of the syllabus. "It is well settled that the legislature has no right or
power to invade the province of the judiciary, by annulling, setting aside, modifying, or
impairing a final judgment previously rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction."
Cowen v. State ex rel. Donovan (1920), 101 Ohio St. 387, 394; Battlett v. Ohio (1905),
73 Ohio St. 54, 58 ("it is well settled that the legislature cannot annul, reverse or modify
a judgment of a court already rendered"); Gompf v. Wolfinger (1902), 67 Ohio St. 144,
at paragraph three of the syllabus ("[a] judgment which is final by the laws existing when
it is rendered cannot constitutionally be made subject to review by a statute
subsequently enacted").1
{113} The United States Supreme Court has demonstrated a similar
understanding of the import of Section 1, Article III of the federal Constitution. The
Court reviewed the history of separation of powers doctrine in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm,
Inc. (1995), 514 U.S. 211:
{114} Judicial decisions in the period immediately after ratification of theConstitution confirm the understanding that it forbade [legislative] interference with thefinal judgments of courts. *** The state courts of the era showed a similarunderstanding of the separation of powers, in decisions that drew little distinctionbetween the federal and state constitutions. To choose one representative example
1. In this respect, the separation of powers doctrine as a limit to legislative action is comparable to theprinciple of res judicata, typically used as a bar to further litigation by the parties. Cf. Grava v. ParkmanTwp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 1995-Ohio-331, at paragraph one of the syllabus ("a valid, final judgmentf:eridered upon•the merits bars all.subsequent actions:based upon any claim arising outof the transactiomor occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action").
A-44
from a multitude: In Bates v. Kimball, 2 Chipman 77 (Vt. 1824), a special Act of theVermont Legislature authorized a party to appeal from the judgment of a court eventhough, under the general law, the time for appeal had expired. The court, noting thatthe unappealed judgment had become final, set itself the question "Have the Legislaturepower to vacate or annul an existing judgment between party and party?" ld., at 83.The answer was emphatic: "The necessity of a distinct and separate existence of thethree great departments of government ... had been proclaimed and enforced by ...Blackstone, Jefferson and Madison," and had been "sanctioned by the people of theUnited States, by being adopted in terms more or less explicit, into all their writtenconstitutions." /d., at 84. The power to annul a final judgment, the court held (citingHaybum's Case, 2 Dall., at 410), was "an assumption of Judicial power," and thereforeforbidden.
{1g15} Id. at 223-224.
{1[16} A determination of an offender's classification under former R.C. Chapter
2950 constituted a final order. State v. Washington, 11th Dist. No. 99-L-015, 2001-
Ohio-8905, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 4980, at *9 ("a defendant's status as a sexually
Oriented offender *°' arises from a finding rendered by the trial court, which in turn
adversely affects a defendant's rights by the imposition of registration requirements");
State v. Dobrski, 9th Dist. No. 06CA008925, 2007-Ohio-3121, at ¶6 ("[i]nasmuch as a
sexual predator classification is an order that affects a substantial right in a special
proceeding, it is final and appealable"). Accordingly, if either party failed to appeal such
a determination within thirty days, as provided for in App.R. 4(A), the judgment became
settled.
{¶17} Subsequent attempts to overturn such judgments have been barred under
the principles of res judicata. See State v. Lucerno, 8th Dist. No. 89039, 2007-Ohio-
5537, at ¶9 (applying res judicata where the State failed to appeal the lower court's
determination that House Bill 180/Megan's Law was unconstitutional: "the courts have
barred sexual predator classifications when an initial classification request had been
;.,w disrnissed -on:kthe. .grounds ,.Ahat <the court:, believed.R C.;,,C,hapter- 2950, .to:.:be
A-55
unconstitutional") (citation omitted); State v. Hobbs, 4th Dist. No. 05CA3011, 2006-
Ohio-3121, at ¶14 ("[appellant] could have raised his claim that the court improperly
ordered him to register as a sex ofFender in a direct appeal to this court ***[;] [t]hus, res
judicata bars [appellant] from now arguing that the court improperly ordered him to
register as a sex offender").
{1[18} Since McCostlin's classification as a sexually oriented offender with
definite registration requirements constituted a final order of the lower court, McCostlin
cannot, under separation of powers and res judicata principles, now be reclassified
under the provisions of the amended Act with differing registration requirements.
{¶19} The State responds by arguing that the authority to create sex offender
classifications with their attendant registration and notification requirements resides with
the legislature and is not one of the inherent powers of the judicial branch of
government. The State relies on authority that "the General Assembly has not
abrogated final judicial decisions without amending the underlying applicable law. ***
Application of this new law does not order the courts to reopen a final judgment, but
instead simply changes the classification scheme." State v. Byers, 7th Dist. No. 0.7 CO
39, 2008-Ohio-5051, at ¶73, quoting Slagle v. State, 145 Ohio Misc.2d 98, 2008-Ohio-
593, at ¶21. This response fails to address the fundamental problem that the
reclassification of sex offenders, such as McCostlin, whose prior classifications were
rendered as part of final sentencing judgments rendered by courts of competent
jurisdiction, effectively voids portions of those judgments.
{¶20} The General Assembly's authority to enact and alter legislation imposing
.,.registration.and notification requirements and residency restrictions upon convicted sex
A-6
6
offenders is neither denied nor disputed. The fact remains that the General Assembly
"cannot annul, reverse or modify a judgment of a court already rendered." Bartlett, 73
Ohio St. at 58. McCostlin's reclassification, as a practical matter, nullifies that part of
the court's February 2, 2007 Judgment ordering him to register for a period of ten years
as a sexually oriented offender. To assert that the General Assembly has authority to
create a new system of classification does not solve the problem that McCostlin's
original classification constituted a final judgment.
{¶21} It is not "simply" the case that the classification system has been changed.
Rather, a final judicial decision has been abrogated. Following the expiration of the
period for filing an appeal, the February 2, 2007 Judgment Entry became a settled
judgment, immune to direct or collateral challenge by McCostlin as well as the State.z
The United States Supreme Court has stated that the principle of separation of powers
is violated by legislation which "depriv[es] judicial judgments of the conclusive effect that
they had when they were announced" and "when an individual final judgment is
legislatively rescinded for even the very best of reasons." Plaut, 514 U.S. at 228
(emphasis sic). To the extent the Adam Walsh Act requires the modification of existing
final sentencing judgments, such as McCostlin's sentence, it violates the doctrine of
separation of powers based on the finality of judicial judgments.
{1[22} Having concluded that McCostlin's reclassification is constitutionally
prohibited, it is unnecessary to address the other arguments raised. These arguments,.
nonetheless, have been considered and rejected in prior decisions of this court. See
Spangler v. State, 11 th Dist. No. 2008-L-062, 2009-Ohio-3178, at ¶¶55-64.
2. As a final judgment, McCostlin's sentence is also beyond the authority of the courts to vacate or;•. 'xVmoYlify: = State v Smith (1'969);142°Ohio, St:3d'•60; at paragraph one'of ttie syllabus,Jurasek v: -Gould ^
Elecs., Inc., 11th Dist. No. 2001-L-007, 2002-Ohio-6260, at¶15 (citations omitted).
A-77
{¶23} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lake County Court of
Common Pleas, reclassifying McCostlin as, a Tier III Sex Offender, is reversed.
McCostlin shall continue registering as a sexually oriented offender pursuant to the trial
court's February 2, 2007 Judgment Entry. Costs to be taxed against appellee.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., concurs in judgment only with a Concurring Opinion,
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J., dissents with a Dissenting Opinion.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., concurring in judgment only.
{¶24} I concur in the ultimate judgment reached by the majority, albeit for
different reasons. I would follow this court's opinion in State v. Ettenger, 11th Dist. No.
2008-L-054, 2009-Ohio-3525. I do not believe that the application of the Adam Walsh
Act to McCostlin violates the doctrine of separation of powers. ld. at ¶75-79. Instead, I
would hold that application of the Adam Walsh Act to McCostlin violates the Ex Post
Facto Clause of the United States Constitution and the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio
Constitution. Id. at ¶10-59. McCostlin had an expectation of finality that his prior
adjudication as a sexually oriented offender would result in a finite, ten-year reporting
period.
{125) I note that this court has found merit to an argument that reclassification
under the Adam Walsh Act constituted a breach of.contract, violating the offender's right
to contract under the Ohio and United States Constitutions. Id. at ¶60-67. However,
the record in this matter does not contain any evidence to support McCostlin's assertion
A-88
that the state agreed to a sexually oriented offender classification. There is no copy of
the prior plea agreement from the underlying case in Cuyahoga County in the record
before this court. Nor does the record contain a transcript of the plea hearing showing
the state's purported agreement. This court has consistently held that "`an appellate
court's review is strictly limited to the record that was before the trial court, no more and
no less."' Condron v. Willoughby Hills, 11th Dist. No. 2007-L-105, 2007-Ohio-5208, at
¶38. (Citation omitted.) Thus, McCostlin cannot demonstrate his claimed error that the
application of the Adam Walsh Act violates his right to contract.
{126} The judgment of the tr'fal court should be reversed.
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J., dissents with a Dissenting Opinion.
(127) The majority rejected most of the constitutional challenges to Senate Bill
10, as this court had done in Swank; State v. Charette, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-069,
2009-Ohio-2952; and State v. Maggy, 11th Dist. No. 2008-T-0078, 2009-Ohio-3180; but
it reversed the trial court's judgment based on Mr. McCostlin's contention that his
original classification as a sexually oriented offender constituted a final judgment and,
as such, could not be vacated or modified by the legislature without a violation of the
separation of powers doctrine.
{¶28} The majority cited State v. Washington and State v. Dobrski for the
proposition that a court's determination of a sex offender's classification constitutes a
final order or judgment, and therefore the separation of powers doctrine precludes a
reclassification. The majority's reliance on these cases is misplaced, because these
A-9
9
cases only concluded such determinations are final orders for the purposes of
appealability. Washington at 8-9 (this court held that the classification of a defendant as
a sexually oriented offender was a final appealable order and therefore properly
appealable); Dobrski at ¶6 ("[ijnasmuch as a sexual predator classification is an order
that affects a substantial right in a special proceeding, it is final and appealable").
{¶29} i do not believe Senate Bill 10 abrogates final judicial determinations in
violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers. I agree with the Fourth Appellate
District's view expressed in State v. Linville, 4th Dist, No. 08CA3051, 2009-Ohio-313,
that the sex offender classification is nothing more than a collateral consequence arising
from the underlying criminal conduct, id. at ¶24, citing Ferguson at ¶34, and that a sex
offender has no reasonable expectation that his criminal conduct would not be subject
to future versions of R.C. Chapter 2950. Id., citing State v. King, 2d Dist. No. 08-CA-02,
2008-Ohio-2594, ¶33. Reclassification does not abrogate final court judgments,
because "the classification of sex offenders into categories has always been a
legislative mandate, not an inherent power of the courts." In re Smith; 3d Dist. No. 1-07-
58, 2008-Ohio-3234, ¶39.
(1[30} For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
08/12/2009 23 2 FAX 814 438 1053 BUDGET WISE PRINTING 16001
08/12/2009^^4:24 FA8 3306752671 S6BRYL Q002
STATE OF OHIO ))SS.
COUNTY OF LAKE
DANlEL ibiCCOSTLIN,
)
Aetttioner-Appetiant,
-ys.
STATE OF OHIO,
Responderit-Appellee.
IN THE COURT OP APPEALS
ELEVENTH DISTRICT
JUDSME>NT-ENTRY
CA91M. 248-L-117
u ! 120
For the reasons stated in the Opinion of this court, the judgmertt of the
Lake County Court of Common Pleas, reciassifying McCostiin as a Tier III Sexual
Offender, is revesed. MoCostiin shali continue registering as a Sexually
Oriented Offender pursuant to the trial court's February 2, 2002 Judgment Entry.
Costs'to be taxed against appetiee,
o Z_Z^ANE V. C7 ENdELL
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., conours in judgment only with a Concurring Opinion.
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J., dissents with a Dissentirig Opinion.