[Cite as State v. Tringelof, 2019-Ohio-5033.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

CLERMONT COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

MICHAEL TRINGELOF, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NOS. CA2019-03-021 

 CA2019-03-022 

O P I N I O N 

12/9/2019 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case Nos. 2012CR0589 and 2012CR0590 

D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nick Horton, 76 South Riverside 

Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellee 

George A. Katchmer, 1886 Brock Road N.E., Bloomingburg, Ohio 43106, for appellant 

 HENDRICKSON, P.J.

{¶ 1} Michael Tringelof appeals the decision of the Clermont County Common Pleas 

Court, which classified him as a sexual predator under Megan's Law. For the reasons 

discussed below, this court affirms the decision. 

{¶ 2} In 2012, Clermont County grand jurors indicted Tringelof on 34 counts, 

including charges of kidnapping, abduction, and endangering children. Every kidnapping 
Clermont CA2019-03-021 

 CA2019-03-022 

 - 2 - 

count included a specification finding that Tringelof committed the offense with a sexual 

motivation. The charges stemmed from allegations that Tringelof lured eight children into the 

basement of his home, bound or restrained them, and then tortured them by poking them 

with sharp objects or shocking them with battery-powered devices. The offenses occurred 

between 1998 and 2005. 

{¶ 3} In 2012, as part of a negotiated plea agreement, Tringelof pled guilty to eight of 

the kidnapping counts. The court thereafter sentenced Tringelof to an agreed sentence of 20 

years in prison. The court also classified Tringelof as a Tier III sex offender. 

{¶ 4} Tringelof did not file a direct appeal. Four years later, Tringelof moved the court 

to withdraw his guilty pleas. The trial court denied the motion and Tringelof appealed. This 

court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Tringelof knowingly, intelligently, and 

voluntarily entered his guilty pleas. State v. Tringelof, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2017-03-

015, CA2017-03-016, 2017-Ohio-7657, ¶ 20. 

{¶ 5} While litigating Tringelof's motion to withdraw his pleas, the parties and trial 

court became aware that the court had erroneously classified Tringelof as a sex offender 

under the Adam Walsh Act. Because all of the offenses were committed prior to the effective 

date of the Adam Walsh Act, the court should have classified Tringelof under the applicable 

version of Megan's Law. The trial court thereafter scheduled a sexual classification hearing 

in May 2018. 

{¶ 6} At the hearing, the contested issues were whether the state had proven that 

Tringelof had a sexual motivation for the kidnapping offenses and whether Tringelof was 

likely to commit one or more "sexually oriented offenses" in the future. See former R.C. 

2950.01(E). The state elicited testimony from the investigating detective, who described the 

circumstances surrounding each child victim. Tringelof sometimes lured the children into his 
Clermont CA2019-03-021 

 CA2019-03-022 

 - 3 - 

home with bribes of baseball cards or boating trips. Other children came to the home 

expecting to play with Tringelof's children but instead found themselves alone with Tringelof. 

{¶ 7} In each case, Tringelof would lead the child into the basement and then restrain 

the child using various implements, including zip ties, dog collars, or leather straps. The 

children were forced to suffer various methods of torture, including being poked in the feet 

with nails or other sharp objects and shocked or electrocuted with wires connected to batterypowered devices. None of the children described any overt sexual acts by Tringelof during 

the torture. Tringelof eventually released the children and some reported that he warned 

them not to tell anyone. 

{¶ 8} Over Tringelof's objection, the detective testified concerning an additional 

alleged victim. This victim contacted police in 2012 to report that Tringelof had tortured and 

sexually assaulted him in 1986. The victim, who was approximately 11 years old in 1986, 

reported that Tringelof had lured him inside Tringelof's residence with the promise of playing 

a video game system. After playing video games for some time, Tringelof tied the victim to a 

chair, blindfolded him, and then began shocking him with a homemade battery-powered 

device. After shocking the victim, Tringelof placed his penis on various parts of the victim's 

body, including the legs, shoulder, and face. Tringelof released the victim but threatened to 

kill him and his family if he told anyone. 

{¶ 9} On a second occasion, about a week later, Tringelof approached the victim as 

the victim got off a school bus. Tringelof invited the victim into his home and the victim stated 

he felt he had to accept, or his family would be harmed. They played Legos until Tringelof 

again restrained the victim and began to beat him with a paddle. Tringelof then removed the 

victim's pants and placed "wax paper" on the victim's buttocks. Tringelof placed his penis on 

the paper and began rubbing until he ejaculated. Tringelof would have been approximately 
Clermont CA2019-03-021 

 CA2019-03-022 

 - 4 - 

18 years old at the time of these incidents. The state never pursued charges with respect to 

the 1986 victim and the record indicates this may partially have been the result of concerns 

over the statute of limitations. 

{¶ 10} After speaking with the 1986 victim, police checked Tringelof's police record 

and noted that a ten-year-old child had reported being restrained and tortured in Tringelof's 

basement in 2005. That case was closed when the child's mother said she thought the child 

was lying. 

{¶ 11} Police renewed that investigation and contacted the 2005 victim, who reiterated 

his claims. Police subsequently arrested Tringelof for the 2005 offense and local news 

coverage led to seven additional victims coming forward. The victims either lived in 

Tringelof's neighborhood or were friends with Tringelof's children. 

{¶ 12} Also over Tringelof's objection, the court allowed the detective to testify as to 

his conversations with Tringelof's ex-wife. She reported that she and Tringelof engaged in 

bondage sex and that he would restrain her using specially-made hooks on their bed. During 

sex he would sometimes hurt her. She would ask him to stop and he would not. She 

reported that the only way he would "get off" would be for her to cry out in pain or indicate 

she was being hurt. 

{¶ 13} The court admitted various exhibits submitted by the state, including the 

complete written police report, a document summarizing the abuse suffered by the victims, 

and Tringelof's "Static-99" report, which is a predictor of sexual recidivism. On a scale of 0 to 

6, Tringelof scored a 4, which indicated a medium to high risk of sexual recidivism. 

{¶ 14} Prior to the classification hearing, Tringelof submitted to a presentence 

investigation. The resulting report was provided to the trial court for its consideration. In 

responding to the investigator's question of what he did to get in trouble, Tringelof replied "I 
Clermont CA2019-03-021 

 CA2019-03-022 

 - 5 - 

tied up neighborhood kids." When asked why he would do this, Tringelof responded, "it was 

just something I did." Tringelof indicated he began this behavior when he was 15 years old. 

He acknowledged it was "messed up behavior" but did not think the children were harmed by 

his actions because they all thought it was a "funny game." 

{¶ 15} The court later issued its decision, finding that Tringelof was likely to commit 

additional sexually oriented offenses based on the statutory factors. Former R.C. 

2950.09(B). With respect to whether the kidnapping offenses were sexually motivated, the 

court noted that it found the evidence related to the 1986 victim and the ex-wife irrelevant. 

The court observed that the state had failed to produce any "independent facts" that would 

demonstrate a sexual motivation in the kidnapping offenses. Nonetheless, the court found 

the offenses were sexually motivated based on Tringelof's earlier pleas to the kidnapping 

counts as each count included a sexual motivation specification. 

{¶ 16} The court noted that, while the plea paperwork did not specifically refer to the 

sexual motivation specifications, those specifications had not been dismissed and Tringelof 

would have been aware he was pleading guilty to both the specifications and the underlying 

offenses. Having concluded that Tringelof had pled guilty to sexually oriented offenses and 

was likely to commit additional sexually oriented offenses, the court classified him as a 

sexual predator under Megan's Law. 

{¶ 17} Tringelof appeals, raising a single assignment of error. 

{¶ 18} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 19} THERE CAN BE NO SEXUAL OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION IF THERE IS 

NO SEXUAL ACTIVITY. 

{¶ 20} Tringelof argues that the court erred in classifying him as a sexual predator 

because the state failed to establish that he was convicted of a sexually oriented offense. 
Clermont CA2019-03-021 

 CA2019-03-022 

 - 6 - 

Specifically, Tringelof argues that the state submitted no evidence indicating any sexual 

motivation with regard to any of the kidnapping offenses. He contends that the only evidence 

indicating a sexual motivation was presented through unreliable hearsay evidence, i.e., the 

testimony and police report concerning the 1986 victim and Tringelof's ex-wife. 

{¶ 21} This court's standard of review is premised on Megan's Law being a "a civil, 

remedial consequence of the conviction and not a punitive component of criminal 

sentencing." State ex rel. Grant v. Collins, 155 Ohio St.3d 242, 246, 2018-Ohio-4281, ¶ 17, 

citing State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 417 (1998); State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 513, 

528 (2000); State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, ¶ 32; State v. Ferguson, 

120 Ohio St.3d 7, 2008-Ohio-4824, at ¶ 36. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that this court 

reviews sex offender classifications under the civil-manifest weight standard, which tests 

whether the classification was supported by competent, credible evidence. Wilson at 

syllabus. 

{¶ 22} The trial court could classify Tringelof as a sexual predator under Megan's Law 

based upon two findings: (1) that Tringelof had been convicted of or pled guilty to a sexually 

oriented offense and, (2) that he was likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually 

oriented offenses. Former R.C. 2950.01(E). In this appeal, Tringelof only challenges 

whether the state demonstrated that he was convicted of or pled guilty to sexually oriented 

offenses. 

{¶ 23} Pursuant to the S.B. 5 amendments to Megan's Law, kidnapping was a sexually 

oriented offense if it was committed with a sexual motivation. Collins at ¶ 15.1 Tringelof 

 

1. In its decision, the trial court discussed whether the state was required to demonstrate a sexual motivation for 

the kidnapping offenses that predated the S.B. 5 amendments. In the H.B. 180 version of Megan's Law, 

kidnapping was a sexually oriented offense when the victim was a child regardless of whether there was a sexual 

motivation. Collins at ¶ 15. Some courts found that this aspect of Megan's Law violated due process. State v. 

Small, 162 Ohio App.3d 375, 2005-Ohio-3813, ¶ 30 (10th Dist.); State v. Barksdale, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 

19294, 2003-Ohio-43. However, in its decision, the trial court presumed that the state was required to prove a 
Clermont CA2019-03-021 

 CA2019-03-022 

 - 7 - 

argues that the only evidence that would indicate a sexual motivation was presented through 

the detective's testimony and accompanying police report concerning the 1986 victim and the 

ex-wife's statements. However, the trial court specifically declined to consider this evidence, 

indicating that it found the evidence irrelevant. Instead, the court premised its decision on 

Tringelof's act of entering voluntary pleas to the eight counts of kidnapping, each of which 

was accompanied by a sexual motivation specification. 

{¶ 24} On appeal, Tringelof did not discuss or assign error to the trial court's 

consideration of his pleas to the eight kidnapping counts. Instead, at oral argument, counsel 

indicated that this court should review the transcript of the classification hearing because the 

trial court discussed "problems" it had with Tringelof's plea.2 However, the court later issued 

its decision finding that Tringelof committed sexually oriented offenses based upon his pleas. 

Thus, if the court had concerns at the classification hearing, it did not have those same 

concerns when it entered its decision. Tringelof has not appealed that issue to this court and 

it is therefore waived. 

{¶ 25} Upon a thorough review of the record, we find no error in the court's decision to 

conclude that Tringelof pled guilty to sexually oriented offenses by entering pleas to the 

kidnapping counts. As observed by the trial court, Tringelof would have been on notice, both 

through the indictments and the bills of particulars, that the state had charged him with 

kidnapping with sexual motivation specifications. Those specifications were not dismissed 

when Tringelof entered his plea. 

{¶ 26} Moreover, the trial court classified Tringelof a Tier III sex offender in 2012. At 

 

sexual motivation for all counts regardless of the offense date, thus obviating this as an issue of potential 

dispute. 

2. The "problems" were apparently the trial court's statement that it had reviewed the audio recording of the plea 

hearing and observed that there has been no specific discussion related to the sexual motivation specifications. 

Tringelof did not supply this court with a transcript of the plea hearing. 
Clermont CA2019-03-021 

 CA2019-03-022 

 - 8 - 

that time, the court had Tringelof sign a form explaining his duties to register as a sex 

offender following his release from prison. This form specifically informed Tringelof that 

"[y]ou have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a sexually oriented offense and or child 

victim offense as defined in ORC 2950.01." Thus, Tringelof would or should have been 

aware that he pled guilty to sexually oriented offenses. Competent and credible evidence 

supports the trial court's decision that Tringelof pled guilty to sexually oriented offenses. 

{¶ 27} Even if Tringelof was arguably unaware of the result of his pleas, the state 

submitted competent and credible evidence indicating that the kidnappings were sexually 

motivated. The Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply in sexual predator classification 

hearings because such hearings are treated similarly to sentencing or probation hearings. 

Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d at 425. As such, in determining whether to classify Tringelof as a sexual 

predator, the trial court could consider "reliable hearsay" as well as uncharged acts. State v. 

Bolser, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2002-02-034, 2003-Ohio-1231, ¶ 16, citing Cook at 425; 

State v. Austin, 138 Ohio App.3d 547 (3d. Dist.2000); State v. Lagow, 12th Dist. Butler No. 

CA2001-06-144, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 507 (Feb. 11, 2002); State v. Burgess, 12th Dist. 

Fayette No. CA99-08-021, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3059 (July 10, 2000). 

{¶ 28} Initially, the very act of an adult luring children into the basement of a home for 

the purposes of restraining and torturing them is indicative of a sexual motivation. As 

observed by the 10th District Court of Appeals, it is a reasonable assumption that an adult 

who abducts an unrelated child is doing so for purposes of committing a sexual crime. State 

v. Bowman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP-1025, 2003-Ohio-5341, ¶ 32 (quoting the trial court, 

"the court can think of absolutely no reason in the world that you would take a young person 

out of a house in the middle of the night and spirit them away to a different location to do 

something other than a sexual act"). 
Clermont CA2019-03-021 

 CA2019-03-022 

 - 9 - 

{¶ 29} However, the additional evidence offered by the state provided circumstantial 

and corroborating evidence to support the reasonable conclusion that Tringelof was sexually 

motivated. The 1986 victim provided the investigating detective with a detailed description of 

being lured into Tringelof's home and then being restrained, tortured, and molested. The 

methods described were largely identical to the methods independently described by the later 

child victims. In the presentence-investigative report, Tringelof confirmed he began torturing 

children in his teenage years, thus corroborating the 1986 victim's allegations. Although 

uncharged, the acts described by the 1986 victim were relevant to establishing that Tringelof 

restrained and tortured children for sexual pleasure. Tringelof's ex-wife's statements 

concerning his sexual proclivities was relevant to establish that control over a person and the 

infliction of pain were Tringelof's method of achieving sexual satisfaction. The Static-99 

document indicated that Tringelof was prone to sexually violent activities and was a high to 

medium risk of re-offending. In conjunction with the underlying offenses, the circumstantial 

evidence offered some competent evidence to support the conclusion that the kidnapping 

offenses were sexually motivated. 

{¶ 30} This court overrules Tringelof's sole assignment of error. 

{¶ 31} Judgment affirmed. 

RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.