State v. Walz, 22669 (4-3-2009)
State v. Walz, 22669 (4-3-2009)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} The notice requirement was imposed on Walz due to a prior sex-offense conviction in Hamilton County. Following Walz's guilty plea to the charge of failing to give notice, the trial court imposed a one-year prison sentence to be served concurrent with his sentence in another case.
{¶ 3} On appeal, Walz raises arguments that have nothing to do with his conviction and sentence in this case. First, he contends R.C.
{¶ 4} As to the former issue, Walz was convicted of changing his residence without giving prior notice to the Sheriffs Department. He was not convicted of violating the prohibition against living within 1,000 feet of a school. He fails to explain how that prohibition has any relevance in this case. With regard to the latter issue, Walz's complaints about his reclassification as a Tier II sex offender are not properly before us. The Attorney General performed the reclassification pursuant to R.C.
DONOVAN, P.J., and FAIN, J., concur. *Page 1
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.