On April 9, 1990, the Coshocton County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Anthony Cognion, on one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(3) and three counts of felonious sexual penetration in violation of R.C.2907.12(A)(1)(b). Said charges arose from incidents involving a boy under the age of thirteen.

On September 4, 1990, appellant pled guilty to the gross sexual imposition charge and the amended charges of attempted sexual penetration (three counts). By judgment entry filed November 23, 1990, the trial court sentenced appellant to a total aggregate term of six to fifteen years in prison.

On September 2, 1997, a hearing was held to determine appellant's status pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act, R.C. Chapter 2950. By judgment entry filed September 5, 1997, the trial court classified appellant as a "sexual predator."

Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:

I

THE COURT'S DECISION VIOLATES THE OHIO AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS BY LABELING THE DEFENDANT AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR AND SUBJECTING HIM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF O.R.C. 2950.

II

O.R.C. 2950.09(C) IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS.

III

THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

I, IIThis court has previously reviewed these arguments inState v. Royce Albaugh (February 1, 1999), Stark App. Nos. 1997CA00167 and 1997CA00222, unreported, State v. Earl Bair (February 1, 1999), Stark App. No. 1997CA00232, unreported, andState v. Frederick A. McIntyre (February 1, 1999), Stark App. No. 1997CA00366, unreported. We hereby adopt and incorporate the corresponding assignments of error from these opinions herein.

Assignments of Error I and II are denied.

IIIAppellant argues the trial court's classification was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.

In State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined R.C. Chapter 2950 is remedial in nature and not punitive. As such, we will review this assignment of error under the standard of review contained in C.E. Morris Co. v.Foley Construction (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279. We find this to be the applicable standard as the Cook court addressed a similar challenge under a manifest weight standard of review. See, Cook at 426.

R.C. 2950.01(E) defines a "sexual predator" as "a person who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to committing a sexually oriented offense and is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually oriented offenses." R.C. 2950.09(B)(2) sets forth the relevant factors a trial court is to consider in making its determination:

(2) In making a determination under divisions (B)(1) and (3) of this section as to whether an offender is a sexual predator, the judge shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

(a) The offender's age;

(b) The offender's prior criminal record regarding all offenses, including, but not limited to, all sexual offense;

(c) The age of the victim of the sexually oriented offense for which sentence is to be imposed;

(d) Whether the sexually oriented offense for which sentence is to be imposed involved multiple victims;

(e) Whether the offender used drugs or alcohol to impair the victim of the sexually oriented offense or to prevent the victim from resisting;

(f) If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any criminal offense, whether the offender completed any sentence imposed for the prior offense and, if the prior offense was a sex offense or a sexually oriented offense, whether the offender participated in available programs for sexual offenders;

(g) Any mental illness or mental disability of the offender;

(h) The nature of the offender's sexual conduct, sexual contact, or interaction in a sexual context with the victim of the sexually oriented offense and whether the sexual conduct, sexual contact, or interaction in a sexual context was part of a demonstrated pattern of abuse;

(i) Whether the offender, during the commission of the sexually oriented offense for which sentence is to be imposed, displayed cruelty or made one or more threats of cruelty;

(j) Any additional behavioral characteristics that contribute to the offender's conduct.

The bill of particulars filed July 10, 1990, indicates between December 25 and 31, 1989, appellant put his hands down the victim's pants and pinched the victim's buttocks. The bill of particulars also indicates that on three separate occasions, January 9, 1990, March 19, 1990, and March 26/27, 1990, appellant inserted his finger(s) into the victim's rectum. The victim was under the age of thirteen. At the hearing, the trial court noted it had before it the "screening instrument" provided by the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, the presentence investigation report prepared at the time of sentencing and two reports/evaluations prepared by the Forensic Diagnostic Center of District 9 Incorporated related to appellant's competence. T. at 4. Based upon these documents in light of R.C. 2950.09(B)(2), the trial court concluded appellant should be classified a "sexual predator" as defined in R.C. 2950.01(E).

Based upon our review of the record, we find the trial court's conclusion is supported by clear and convincing evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Assignment of Error III is denied.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Coshocton County, Ohio is hereby affirmed.

By Farmer, J., Gwin, P.J. and Edwards, J. concur.

--------------------

--------------------

-------------------- JUDGES

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Coshocton County, Ohio is affirmed.

--------------------

--------------------

-------------------- JUDGES