OH- Piqua sex offender asks court to delay order to move

12-5-2008 Ohio:

TROY — A Piqua registered sex offender is asking Ohio's 2nd District Court of Appeals to throw out a Miami County judge's finding he was in contempt of court for moving into a Piqua residence he previously had vacated under court order.

Lawyers for Edward Burge, 35, also are asking the appeals court to stay, pending that court's findings, Judge Robert Lindeman's order for Burge to move from the Wood Street, Piqua, residence where his wife and children reside.

A stay is reasonable because Burge is likely to prevail in his appeal, lawyer Margie Slagle of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center wrote in the request filed Monday, Dec. 1.

Lindeman on Nov. 7 gave Burge until Nov. 21 to move from the Wood Street address or face 30 days in jail. A request to Lindeman for a stay pending appeal was denied. Burge has temporarily moved in with a friend to avoid jail, according to the appeal and stay request.

Burge was ordered in spring 2006 to move from the Wood Street apartment because it was within 1,000 feet of Piqua Catholic school's Downing Street elementary school. Since that time, prosecutors have gone to court four times seeking orders for Burge to move from residences in Troy and Piqua.

Burge has appeared on a CBS News segment on sex offender residency restrictions and on "The Montel Williams Show" to discuss controversial residency laws.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled early this year that a 2003 law regarding the 1,000-foot rule did not apply to those convicted and living in a residence before the law was passed. Prosecutors and defense lawyers disagreed on whether the ruling dealt only with those who owned the residence.

Lindeman said Burge had no appeal pending when the case was decided by the Supreme Court. As a result, the 2006 order "is voidable, but not void," the judge wrote.

Burge was convicted in 2000 of attempted unlawful sexual conduct with minor and labeled a sexually oriented offender.

Slagle argues in the request for a stay that because Burge was convicted in 2000, the law was not effective until 2003 and the Supreme Court said it could not be imposed retroactively, the 2006 order against Burge is void, and Burge cannot be found in contempt. In addition, she said, Burge "assumed" the 2006 order would be dropped because the court had already decided in a separate case that the residency restriction did not apply to him. That decision was appealed to the 2nd District Court by Miami County prosecutors and is pending. ..News Source.. by Nancy Bowman, Staff Writer