[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 Ho rton, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellee George A. Katchmer, 1886 Brock Road N.E., Bloomingburg, Ohio 43 106, for appellant

HENDRICKSON, P.J. {¶ 1} Michael Tringelof appeals the decision of the Clermont County C ommon Pleas Court, which classified him as a sexual predator under Megan's Law. For the reasons discussed below, this court a ffirms the decision. {¶ 2} In 2012, Clermont County grand jurors indicted Tringelof on 34 counts, including charges of kidnapping, abduction, and endangering chi ldren. Every kidnappingClermont 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 Tringelo f lured eight children into the basement of his home, bound or restrained them, and then tortur ed them by poking them with sharp objects or shocking them with battery-powered device s. 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 Tringelo f 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, Trin gelof moved the court to withdraw his guilty pleas. The trial court denied the motio n and Tringelof appealed. This court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Tringel of 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 Tr ingelof as a sex offender

under the Adam Walsh Act. Because all of the offenses were com mitted prior to the effective date of the Adam Walsh Act, the court should have classified Tr ingelof 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 a nd whether Tringelof was likely to commit one or more "sexually oriented offenses" in th e future. See former R.C. 2950.01(E). The state elicited testimony from the investigatin g detective, who described the circumstances surrounding each child victim. Tringelof sometim es lured the children into hisClermont CA2019-03-021 CA2019-03-022

- 3 - home with bribes of baseball cards or boating trips. Other chi ldren came to the home expecting to play with Tringelof's children but instead found t hemselves 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 col lars, or leather straps. The children were forced to suffer various methods of torture, incl uding being poked in the feet with nails or other sharp objects and shocked or electrocuted w ith wires connected to batterypowered devices. None of the children described any overt sexu al acts by Tringelof during the torture. Tringelof eventually released the children and so me 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 approximat ely 11 years old in 1986, reported that Tringelof had lured him inside Tringelof's reside nce 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 home made 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 releas ed 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 wou ld have been approximatelyClermont CA2019-03-021 CA2019-03-022

- 4 - 18 years old at the time of these incidents. The state never p ursued charges with respect to the 1986 victim and the record indicates this may partially hav e 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 restrain ed 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 investigati on and contacted the 2005 victim , who reiterated his claims. Police subsequently arrested Tringelof for the 200 5 offense and local news coverage led to seven additional victims coming forward. The v ictims either lived in Tringelof's neighborhood or were friends with Tringelof's child ren. {¶ 12} Also over Tringelof's objection, the court allowed the detectiv e 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, inc luding the complete written police report, a document summarizing the abus e suffered by the victims, and Tringelof's "Static-99" report, which is a predictor of sex ual 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 p resentence 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 "IClermont CA2019-03-021 CA2019-03-022

- 5 - tied up neighborhood kids." When asked why he would do this, T ringelof responded, "it was just something I did." Tringelof indicated he began this behav ior when he was 15 years old. He acknowledged it was "messed up behavior" but did not think t he 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 fa ctors. Former R.C. 2950.09(B). With respect to whether the kidnapping offenses we re sexually motivated, the

court noted that it found the evidence related to the 1986 vict im and the ex-wife irrelevant. The court observed that the state had failed to produce any "in dependent facts" that would demonstrate a sexual motivation in the kidnapping offenses. No netheless, the court found the offenses were sexually motivated based on Tringelof's earli er pleas to the kidnapping

counts as each count included a se xual motivation specification

. {¶ 16} The court noted that, while the plea paperwork did not specific ally 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 specif ications and the underlying offenses. Having concluded that Tringelof had pled guilty to s exually 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 s exual 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 evid ence indicating any sexual motivation with regard to any of the kidnapping offenses. He c ontends 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 Trin gelof's ex-wife. {¶ 21} This court's standard of review is premised on Megan's Law bein g a "a civil, remedial consequence of the conviction and not a punitive compo nent 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 Co urt has held that this court

reviews sex offender classifications under the civil-manifest w eight 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 u nder 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 f uture in one or more sexually oriented offenses. Former R.C. 2950.01(E). In this appeal, Tr ingelof only challenges whether the state demonstrated that he was convicted of or pled guilty to sexually oriented

offenses. {¶ 23} Pursuant to t he S.B. 5 amendments to Megan's Law, kidnapping wa s 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 stat e was required to demonstrate a sexual motivation for the kidnapping offenses that predated the S.B. 5 amendments. I n 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 vi olated 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 aClermont CA2019-03-021 CA2019-03-022

- 7 - argues that the only evidence that would indicate a sexual moti vation was presented through the detective's testimony and a ccompanying police report concer ning the 1986 victim and the ex-wife's statements. However, the trial court specifically de clined 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 tri al court's consideration of his pleas to the eight kidnapping counts. Ins tead, at oral arg ument, counsel indicated that this court should review the transcript of the c lassification 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 appea led that issue to this court and

it is therefore waived. {¶ 25} Upon a thorough review of the record, we find no error in the c ourt's decision to conclude that Tringelof pled guilty to sexually oriented offens es by entering pleas to the kidnapping counts. As observed by the trial court, Tringelof w ould 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 specif ications were not dismissed when Tringelof entered his plea. {¶ 26} Moreover, the trial court classified Tringelof a Tier III sex o ffender 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 pl ea hearing.Clermont CA2019-03-021 CA2019-03-022

- 8 - that time, the court had Tringelof sign a form explaining his d uties to register as a sex offender following his release from prison. This form specific ally informed Tringelof that "[y]ou have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a sexually o riented offense and or child victim offense as defined in ORC 2950.01." Thus, Tringelof wou ld or should have been aware that he pled guilty to sexually oriented offenses. Compe tent 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 ple as, the state submitted competent and credible evidence indicating that the k idnappings were sexually motivated. The Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply in sexu al predator classification hearings because such hearings are treated similarly to sentenc ing or probation hearings. Cook , 83 Ohio St.3d at 425. As such, in determining whether to cla ssify 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, ci ting 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, 20 00). {¶ 28} Initially, the very act of an adult luring children into the ba sement 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 reasona ble assumption that an adult who abducts an unrelated child is doing so for purposes of comm itting a sexual crime. State

v. Bowman , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP-1025, 2003-Ohio-5341, ¶ 32 (quot ing 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 detectiv e with a detailed description of being lured into Tringelof's home and then being restrained, to rtured, and molested. The methods described were largely identical to the methods indepen dently described by the later child victims. In the presentence-investigative report, Tringe lof confirmed he began torturing children in his teenage years, thus corroborating the 1986 vict im's allegations. Although uncharged, the acts described by the 1986 victim were relevant to establishing that Tringelof restrained and tortured children for sexual pleasure. Tringelo f's ex-wife's statements concerning his sexual proclivities was relevant to establish th at 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 underlyin g offenses, the circumstantial evidence offered some competent evidence to support the conclus ion 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.