State v. Simpson, Unpublished Decision (2-8-1999)
State v. Simpson, Unpublished Decision (2-8-1999)
Opinion of the Court
In September 1995, defendant-appellant, Jeffrey S. Simpson, was indicted on three counts of rape in violation of R.C.
The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction subsequently recommended that appellant be adjudicated a sexual predator. Following a June 17, 1998 hearing conducted pursuant to R.C.
The first assignment of error claims that the trial court's decision adjudicating appellant a sexual predator is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Under R.C.
Evidence at appellant's hearing demonstrated that appellant was twenty-six years old when he engaged in sexual conduct with the victim, his six-year-old niece. Appellant was baby-sitting his niece when the offense occurred and he used force to perpetrate the crime. Prior to this incident, appellant had no criminal record.
Appellant's father testified that his son admitted guilt to him shortly after the incident and did not attempt to deny the crime. Appellant also presented evidence that he had completed a sexual offender program in prison. Appellant denied that three separate incidents occurred as alleged in the indictment, insisting that he only committed one offense.
We find that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's determination and that the court considered relevant statutory factors under R.C.
Appellant's second and third assignments of error claim that the classification, registration and notification provisions of R.C. Chapter 2950 violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution and the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution. We find no merit in either of these assignments of error based upon the Supreme Court's decision inState v. Cook (1998),
Appellant presents additional constitutional challenges to R.C. Chapter 2950 in his fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of error. These identical constitutional claims have already been considered and rejected by this court. See State v. Brown. Thus, appellant's fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of error are likewise overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
YOUNG, P.J., and POWELL, J., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.