[Cite as In re Bruce S., 2011-Ohio-6634.] 

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 23, 2011 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee State of Ohio, 

Office of the Ohio Public Defender and Amanda J. Powell, Assistant State Public 

Defender, for Appellant Bruce S. 

Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

IN RE: BRUCE S. :

: 

APPEAL NO. C-110042 

TRIAL NO. 08-15538X 

 O P I N I O N.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

Per Curiam. 

{¶1} Appellant Bruce S. admitted to and was adjudicated delinquent for 

committing an act on September 1, 2007, that, if committed by an adult, would have 

constituted the sexually-oriented offense of rape. The juvenile court, believing that 

Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10 (“Senate Bill 10”) required it to classify Bruce S. as a Tier III sex 

offender, classified Bruce S. as a Tier III sex offender subject to community 

notification. We reversed the Tier III classification on appeal, holding that the 

juvenile court had discretion to classify Bruce S. as a Tier I, a Tier II, or a Tier III 

offender, and that the failure of the trial court to exercise that discretion was 

reversible error. In re Bruce S. (Dec. 16, 2009), 1st Dist. No. C-081300. We 

remanded the case to the juvenile court for a new hearing to determine Bruce S.’s 

appropriate sex-offender classification. 

{¶2} A juvenile court magistrate held a new classification hearing on May 

19, 2010. The magistrate ordered Bruce S. to register pursuant to Senate Bill 10 as a 

Tier III juvenile sex offender subject to community notification. The trial court 

overruled Bruce S.’s objections to the magistrate’s decision and on December 20, 

2010, adopted it as the judgment of the court. Bruce S. has appealed his 

classification under Senate Bill 10 as a Tier III juvenile-sex-offender registrant 

subject to community notification. 

{¶3} On July 13, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Williams, 

129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108, which held that Senate Bill 

10’s classification, registration, and community-notification provisions could not 

constitutionally be retroactively applied to sex offenders who had committed their 

sex offenses prior to its enactment. Senate Bill 10 was enacted June 27, 2007. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

Senate Bill 10 repealed Ohio’s former sex-offender classification, registration, and 

community-notification provisions (“Megan’s Law”), Am.Sub.H.B. No. 180, 146 Ohio 

Laws, Part II, 2560, enacted in 1996, amended in 2003 by Am. Sub.S.B. No. 5, 150 

Ohio Laws, Part IV, 6556, effective July 1, 2007. Senate Bill 10’s registration, 

classification, and community-notification provisions, including those regarding the 

classification of juveniles as Tier I, Tier II or Tier III sex offenders, became effective 

January 1, 2008. 

{¶4} “Where an act of the General Assembly amends an existing section of 

the Revised Code * * *, postpones the effective date of the amended section for [a 

certain period of time] after the effective date of the act, and repeals the ‘existing’ 

section in a standard form of repealing clause used for many years by the General 

Assembly for the purpose of complying with Section 15(D) of Article II of the 

Constitution of Ohio, the constitutionally mandated repealing clause must be 

construed to take effect upon the effective date of the amended section in order to 

prevent a hiatus in statutory law, during which neither the repealed section nor the 

amended section is in effect.” Cox v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 

501, 508, 424 N.E.2d 597. 

{¶5} The repealing clause of a statute does not take effect until the 

amended provisions of the act come into operation. See id.; State v. Brown, 8th 

Dist. No. 90798, 2009-Ohio-127, reversed in part on other grounds, In re Sexual 

Offender Classification Cases, 126 Ohio St.3d 322, 2010-Ohio-3753, 933 N.E.2d 801; 

In re Carr, 5th Dist. No. 08 CA 19, 2008-Ohio-5689; In re Marcio A., 5th Dist. No. 

2007 CA 00149, 2008-Ohio-4523. Senate Bill 10’s classification, registration, and 

community-notification provisions became effective on January 1, 2008. Prior to 

that date, including the period from Senate Bill 10’s enactment to its January 1, 2008 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

effective date, Ohio’s former sex-offender classification, registration and communitynotification provisions were in effect. See State v. Brown, supra; In re Carr, supra; 

In re Marcio A., supra. 

{¶6} Bruce S. committed his offense on September 1, 2007, prior to the 

effective date of Senate Bill 10’s registration, classification, and communitynotification provisions, and during the time that Megan’s Law was in effect. 

Therefore, Senate Bill 10’s classification, registration, and community-notification 

provisions may not be applied to him. See State v. Williams, supra. The judgment of 

the juvenile court classifying Bruce S. as a Tier III juvenile sex offender under Senate 

Bill 10 must be reversed, and this cause must be remanded for Bruce S.’s sexualoffender classification under Megan’s Law. 

{¶7} Our disposition of this appeal renders Bruce S.’s four assignments of 

error moot. Therefore, we do not address them. The judgment of the trial court is 

reversed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with law and 

this opinion. 

{¶8} We recognize that our opinion in this case is in conflict with the 

opinion rendered by the Eighth Appellate District in State v. Scott, 8th Dist. No. 

91890, 2011-Ohio-6255, holding that Senate Bill 10’s classification provisions may be 

constitutionally applied to a sex offender who had committed his offenses during the 

period from July 1, 2007 through August 31, 2007. Therefore, pursuant to Section 

3(B)(4), Article IV, of the Ohio Constitution, we sua sponte certify a conflict to the 

Ohio Supreme Court for review and final determination. 

{¶9} We certify this question to the Supreme Court of Ohio: May Senate 

Bill 10’s classification, registration, and community-notification provisions be 

constitutionally applied to a sex offender who had committed his sex offense between 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

the July 1, 2007, repeal of Megan’s Law and the January 1, 2008, effective date of 

Senate Bill 10’s classification, registration, and community-notification provisions? 

Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 

SUNDERMANN, P.J., CUNNINGHAM and FISCHER, JJ.

Please note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry this date.