Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-04-2019
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO vs. ROBERT DENIKE
Case Number: C-180299
Judge: Marilyn Zayas
Court: COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
Plaintiff's Attorney: Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Call 888-354-4529 if you need a Criminal Defense Attorney in Ohio.
Description:
Call Kent Morlan at 888-354-4529 if you need a lawyer ⚖
In 2003, defendant-appellant Robert Denike was indicted for
attempted murder, rape, and felonious assault. All counts carried repeat-violent
offender and sexually-violent-predator specifications. In exchange for the dismissal
of the attempted-murder count and the specifications to all counts, on June 25,
2003, Denike pleaded guilty to rape and felonious assault. The trial court imposed
an agreed aggregate term of 15 years’ imprisonment.
{¶2} After Denike was released from prison on parole, he was returned to
the trial court on May 16, 2018, for a sexual-offender-classification hearing under
former R.C. Chapter 2950, Ohio’s version of Megan’s Law. Denike was already
registering as a habitual sexual offender pursuant to a March 6, 2000 order entered
in another case.
{¶3} Denike filed written objections to the trial court’s jurisdiction to hold
the sexual-offender-classification hearing, and his counsel also made an oral
objection at the hearing. The state contended at the hearing that it was proceeding
under former R.C. 2950.09(C)(2)(a), and argued that the trial court had jurisdiction
to hold the sexual-offender-classification hearing under that statute. The trial court
agreed with the state’s argument, overruled Denike’s objections, and held a hearing
at which the state submitted an exhibit showing that Denike had been classified as a
habitual sexual offender in 2000, along with court clinic reports on Denike’s
dangerousness and likelihood to sexually reoffend. The court classified Denike as a
sexual predator. Denike has appealed his classification.
{¶4} Former R.C. 2950.09 provided,
(C)(1) If a person was convicted of or pleaded guilty to a
sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt
sexually oriented offense prior to January 1, 1997, if the
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
3
person was not sentenced for the offense on or after January
1, 1997, and if, on or after January 1, 1997, the offender is
serving a term of imprisonment in a state correctional
institution, the department of rehabilitation and correction
shall do whichever of the following is applicable:
(a) If the sexually oriented offense was an offense described in
division (D)(1)(c) of section 2950.01 of the Revised Code or was a
violent sex offense, the department shall notify the court that
sentenced the offender of this fact, and the court shall conduct a
hearing to determine whether the offender is a sexual predator.
(b) If division (C)(1)(a) of this section does not apply, the department
shall determine whether to recommend that the offender be
adjudicated a sexual predator. In making a determination under this
division as to whether to recommend that the offender be adjudicated
a sexual predator, the department shall consider all relevant factors,
including, but not limited to, all of the factors specified in divisions
(B)(2) and (3) of this section. If the department determines that it will
recommend that the offender be adjudicated a sexual predator, it
immediately shall send the recommendation to the court that
sentenced the offender. If the department determines that it will not
recommend that the offender be adjudicated a sexual predator, it
immediately shall send its determination to the court that sentenced
the offender. In all cases, the department shall enter its determination
and recommendation in the offender’s institutional record, and the
court shall proceed in accordance with division (C)(2) of this section.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
4
(2)(a) If the department of rehabilitation and correction sends to a
court a notice under (C)(1)(a) of this section, the court shall conduct a
hearing to determine whether the subject offender is a sexual predator.
If, pursuant to division (C)(1)(b) of this section, the department sends
to a court a recommendation that an offender be adjudicated a sexual
predator, the court is not bound by the department’s recommendation,
and the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the
offender is a sexual predator. In any case, the court shall not make a
determination as to whether the offender is, or is not, a sexual
predator without a hearing. The court may hold the hearing and make
the determination prior to the offender’s release from imprisonment
or at any time within one year following the offender’s release from
that imprisonment.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶5} Former R.C. 2950.09(C)(2)(a) applied to an offender who was
convicted of or pleaded guilty to a sexually-oriented offense prior to January 1, 1997,
if the offender was not sentenced on or after January 1, 1997. Denike pleaded guilty
to rape and was sentenced on June 25, 2003. He did not plead guilty to a sexually
oriented offense prior to January 1, 1997, and he was sentenced after January 1,
1997. Therefore, former R.C. 2950.09(C)(2)(a) did not apply to Denike, and it could
not have provided the trial court with jurisdiction to hold the sexual-offender
classification hearing.
{¶6} We hold that the trial court erred in holding the sexual-offender
classification hearing under former R.C. 2950.09(C)(2)(a), because it had no
authority to do so. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment classifying Denike as a
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
5
sexual predator must be vacated. Because we have held that Denike’s sexual
predator classification must be vacated, his assignments of error are moot.
Outcome: The judgment of the trial court classifying Denike as a sexual predator
is vacated.
Judgment vacated.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: