OH- Mansfield sex offender loses reclass appeal

Unbelievable, now every sentence handed out in any criminal matter can be modified LEGALLY (errrr, according to this court) claiming, the modification is to prevent future offenses. Humm, that doesn't change the fact that the sentence is being modified, and that is precisely what ex post facto clauses are supposed to prevent.

5-8-2009 Ohio:

MANSFIELD — The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Canton has ruled a change in state law reclassifying convicted sex offenders retroactively doesn’t violate the Ohio Constitution.

The April 27 decision means Mansfield resident William Sigler, 30, will continue to be labeled the most serious of sex offenders. Sigler must register with the sheriff’s office in the county where he lives every 90 days for the rest of his life.

“It’s definitely disappointing,” said Sigler when contacted Thursday. “It’s been a very discouraging roller coaster ride and I still feel it is further punishment.”

Sigler pleaded guilty to attempted rape as part of a plea bargain in May 2000 and was sentenced to six years in prison. He was also designated a Tier I sexually-oriented offender, the least serious classification, which required him to register with the sheriff’s office once a year for 10 years.

In December 2007, the Ohio Attorney General’s office notified Sigler he was being reclassified as a Tier III sexual predator, the most serious category. The change was a ripple effect of the federal Adam Walsh Act. Sigler filed a civil lawsuit seeking to have the change declared unconstitutional because it violated prohibitions against laws that take effect retroactively, his plea bargain contract, and due process rights.

Last August, Richland County Common Pleas Court Judge James DeWeese ruled it was appropriate to use the new classifications for people convicted in new cases but unconstitutional in cases already decided because it retroactively changed the sentences. DeWeese also said the reclassification imposed new, additional burdens on Sigler and changed the terms of his plea bargain.

The Ohio Attorney General’s office appealed the ruling and the appeals court upheld the challenge. The three-judge panel said the new laws don’t violate constitutional clauses because they are intended as a deterrent against future offenses, not as punishment.

Sigler considered the previous classification system as more fair, he said, because it was based on an evaluation of whether the person was likely to be a repeat offender.

Sarah Schregardus, an attorney with the Ohio Public Defender’s Office who represented Sigler on appeal, was not surprised by the decision because it was consistent with those of other Ohio courts of appeal on the issue. She said she plans to file a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court within the required 45 days and will ask for a stay of the new classification and registration requirements.

Schregardus called DeWeese’s decision a “common sense opinion” because it went against what she felt was bad case law. She hoped the state’s high court would take the case, noting it already has accepted several others involving the Adam Walsh Act.

“The General Assembly expressly stated its intent that these measures would be non-punitive and would be meant to serve the non-criminal purposes of abiding law enforcement, providing helpful information to the public, and protecting the public,” the court said in its ruling.

The District Court said it couldn’t rule on the plea bargain aspect because a copy of the agreement was not part of the record.

DeWeese said Sigler will have to follow the new registration requirements, at least for now, because the Appeals Court did not turn the case back to him for further action. He also said he was surprised the court ruled there was no enhanced penalty, even though the reporting requirements were more severe and the new law put fully half of convicted sex offenders under the most severe classification.

“I just did the best I could on what I thought was an extra punishment, but they spoke last,” DeWeese said.

Richland County Assistant Prosecutor Kirsten Gartner declined to comment because the latest ruling will probably be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court. She said final disposition of Sigler’s case will be up to DeWeese pending any further appeal. ..News Source.. by Al Lawrence • News Journal correspondent