Court Rules Appeal of Sex Offender Classification is a Criminal Matter

2009-0971. State v. Clayborn, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2123.
Franklin App. No. 08AP-593, 2009-Ohio-1751. Judgment of the court of appeals affirmed.
Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer and Lanzinger, JJ., concur in judgment only.
Brown, C.J., not participating.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-2123.pdf

(May 20, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio today ruled that an appeal from a sexual offender classification must be appealed in the criminal case and filed within 30 days.

The Court’s 6-0 decision, authored by Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, affirmed a ruling by the 10th District Court of Appeals, but for reasons different from those stated by the appellate court.

The issue before the Supreme Court was “whether an appeal of an R.C. Chapter 2950 sexual-offender classification is an appeal of a criminal matter that must be filed within 30 days after judgment in the case is entered, or whether it is a civil matter for which the 30-day deadline is tolled until the defendant has been served with a copy of the judgment entry.”

On May 27, 2008, Byron Clayborn pleaded guilty to one second-degree felony count of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor. In a May 30, 2008, judgment entry, the trial court noted that the conviction automatically classified Clayborn as a Tier II sexual offender under the Adam Walsh Act. Clayborn filed a notice of appeal 46 days after the judgment entry. The appeals court held that the appeal was criminal, and therefore untimely, and dismissed his appeal. The Supreme Court accepted the case as a discretionary appeal.

Clayborn’s attorneys argued that sexual-offender classifications are intended to be administrative, not punitive, and are therefore civil determinations. They argued the clerk of court did not serve Clayborn with a copy of the trial court judgment as mandated by civil procedure rules and that this lack of service indefinitely tolled the time for filing his notice of appeal.

Justice Stratton wrote that the Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court “concluding that Clayborn was appealing ‘from a quintessential criminal case – a case initiated with an indictment alleging that Clayborn committed criminal offenses and concluded with a conviction for one of those offenses and a two-year sentence.’”

Justice Stratton pointed to three Supreme Court decisions in cases since 1998 that dealt with various forms of the sex offender classification statute. “Our holdings in Cook, Wilson, and Ferguson do not turn the sex offender classification proceedings in the underlying criminal case, which has a criminal case number, into a civil case,” she wrote. “While sex-offender-classification proceedings are civil in nature and require a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, we hold that an appeal from a sexual offender classification is a civil matter within the context of a criminal case. Therefore, although the court reviews the classification matter on civil standards, the appeal requirements applicable to criminal cases, nonetheless apply.”

Justice Stratton noted that Clayborn could seek relief through a motion for delayed appeal under the rules of appellate procedure.

Justice Stratton’s opinion was joined by Justices Maureen O’Connor, Terrence O’Donnell and Robert R. Cupp. Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and Judith Ann Lanzinger concurred in judgment only.

Chief Justice Eric Brown did not participate in the Court’s deliberations or decision in the case.

Contacts
Allen V. Adair, 614.719.2061, for Byron Clayborn

Steven L. Taylor, 614.462.3960, for the state and Franklin County Prosecutor.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."

Requires the free Adobe Flash Player.