Toledo Legal News - 10th District determines lower court does have jurisdiction in sex offender classification case
A 10th District Court of Appeals panel recently reversed a lower court's judgment that it lacked jurisdiction to classify a man as a sex offender. The three-judge appellate panel ruled that the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas' failure to hold a trial at the release of a Franklin County man did not impede the court's jurisdiction. "This is not the case with (Revised Code 2152.83(A)), which states that the juvenile court must hold a hearing at the time of the child's release, but does not state that a court's failure to do so precludes jurisdiction or voids imposition of classification for purposes of (Revised Code Chapter 2950)," 10th District Judge Judith French wrote for the court. Case summary stated that J.B., identified as such because he was a minor at the time of his offense, was charged in 2008 with gross sexual imposition by engaging in sexual activity with a 4-year-old. He was 17-years old at the time and was committed to the Ohio Department of Youth Services for a minimum of six months and maximum period that was not to exceed his turning 21. The magistrate who sentenced J.B. included that she would "reserve the registration hearing for the release from (the Department of Youth Services)," according to case summary. She also denied his motion for early release in February 2009. The Department of Youth Services sent the trial court a request that J.B. be released on parole on Dec. 17, 2009, and included a case plan that included a list of parole rules and conditions signed by J.B. The list did not include having to register as a sex offender. The trial court approved the request the following day but did not address J.B. becoming a registered sex offender. The state filed to continue jurisdiction on Sept. 13, 2010, one day before J.B.'s parole was terminated, asking the court for a hearing to order J.B. to be a registered sex offender and citing the magistrate's prior statement that a hearing would be held. After finding J.B. to be a Tier I offender, the magistrate ordered him to register for 10 years and the trial court adopted the decision. J.B. objected to the ruling, arguing the court's jurisdiction had expired upon termination of his parole. The court sustained the argument, which the state appealed. The state argued that the time frame in Revised Code 2152.83(A), which requires sex offender registration requirements be determined at the dispositional hearing or the time of the offender's release from the Department of Youth Services, was not jurisdictional and that jurisdiction had not expired. The panel clarified that the code defined J.B. as a sex offender and his offense as a sexually oriented offense and that he fit the criteria of section 2152.83(A). "Applying these provisions here, the trial court was required, 'at the time of' J.B.'s release from (Department of Youth Services) custody on Dec. 18, 2009, to hold a hearing, determine whether he is an offender under Tier I, Tier II or Tier III, and issue an order that classified J.B. and ordered him to comply with the applicable registration requirements," French wrote, citing the code. While the court failed to comply with those time frames, the panel held that it was not relieved of its jurisdiction to hold a hearing regarding the registration. "Based on the applicable precedent and statutes, we similarly conclude that the court's failure to hold a hearing until 10 months after J.B.'s release did not preclude jurisdiction to hold a hearing, classify J.B. as an offender under R.C. Chapter 2950, and order him to comply with applicable registration requirements," French stated. "Because the trial court concluded otherwise, we sustain the state's assignment of error." Fellow 10th District judges William Klatt and John Connor joined French to form the majority. The case is cited J.B. v. State of Ohio, case No. 11AP-243.