[Cite as Chojnacki v. Cordray , 126 Ohio St.3d 321, 2010-Ohio-3212.]

C HOJNACKI , A PPELLANT , v . C ORDRAY , A TTY . G EN ., A PPELLEE . [Cite as Chojnacki v. Cordray , 126 Ohio St.3d 321, 2010-Ohio-3212.] Causes dismissed as moot. (Nos. 2008-0991 and 2008-0992

— Submitted November 4, 2009

— Decided July 13, 2010.)
A PPEAL from and C ERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Warren County,
No. CA2008-03-040.

__________________ {¶ 1} These consolidated causes present a single issue for resolution: Is a judgment denying a request for the appoi ntment of counsel in a reclassification hearing held pursuant to 2007 Am.Sub.S.B. 10 (“S.B. 10” or the “Adam Walsh Act”) a final, appealable order? {¶ 2} Appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor in Cuyahoga County and wa s sentenced in 2006 to four years in prison on each count, to be served consecu tively. After a classification hearing pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2950, the trial c ourt found that appellant was not likely to reoffend and classified him as a sexu ally oriented offender. Appellant is currently incarcerated in the Warren Correctional Institution in Warren County, Ohio. {¶ 3} In December, 2007, appellant received a letter from the Ohio Attorney General notifying him that he had been reclassified under S.B. 10 as a Tier II offender. On February 26, 2008, appellant filed a petition to contest the application of S.B. 10. Because appellant was incarcerated and indigent, he filed with his petition a motion to appoint couns el. On March 10, 2008, the trial court denied the motion for appointment of counsel, and appellant appealed.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 4} On April 3, 2008, the Twelfth Distri ct Court of Appeals sua sponte dismissed the appeal because it was not ta ken from a final, appealable order. {¶ 5} This court released its opinion in State v. Bodyke , 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, ___ N.E.2d ___, on June 3, 2010. In Bodyke , we severed R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, the reclassification provisions of the Adam Walsh Act, and held that after severance, thos e provisions could not be enforced. We further held that R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032 may not be applied to offenders previously adjudicated by judges under “Megan’s Law.” {¶ 6} The reclassification hearing which has resulted in this appeal and the related certified question arose unde r the now-severed provisions of R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032. Accordingly, these causes no longer present a justiciable case or controversy, and as a result, th e appeal is dismissed as moot and the certified conflict is dismissed because a conflict no longer exists. So ordered.
P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and
C UPP , JJ., concur.
B ROWN , C.J., not participating.

__________________ Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defende r, and Jason A. Macke and Sarah M. Schregardus, Assistant Pub lic Defenders; and Kelly K. Curtis, for appellant. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor General, Alexandra T. Schimmer, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, David M. Lieberman, Deputy Solicitor, and Christopher P. Conom y, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee. Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Cullen Sweeney and John T. Martin, Assistant Public De fenders; Yeura R. Venters, Franklin County Public Defender, and Paul Skendelas, Assistant Public Defender; R. Paul LaPlante, Lake County Public Defend er, and Vanessa R. Clapp, Supervising Attorney; Glen H. Dewar, Montgomery County Public Defender; Tammi R.January Term, 2010

3 Johnson, Stark County Public Defender, a nd Jean A. Madden, Assistant Public Defender; ACLU of Ohio Foundation, In c., and Carrie L. Davis; and Gamso, Helmick & Hoolahan and Jeffrey M. Gamso, urging reversal for amici curiae Cuyahoga County Public Defender, Fra nklin County Public Defender, Lake County Public Defender, Montgomery County Public Defender, Stark County Public Defender, and Ameri can Civil Liberties Union.

______________________