[Cite as Geran v. State, 2017-Ohio-8037.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

JAMES E. GERAN, : 

 CASE NO. CA2017-04-041 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : 

 O P I N I O N 

 : 10/2/2017 

 - vs - 

 : 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Defendant-Appellee. : 

CIVIL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CV2016-11-2530 

Dennis L. Adams, 10 Journal Square, Suite 400, P.O. Box 643, Hamilton, Ohio 45012, for 

plaintiff-appellant 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Willa Concannon, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellee 

 S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, James E. Geran, appeals from the decision of the Butler County 

Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for sex offender re-classification. For the 

reasons outlined below, we affirm. 

{¶ 2} Many of the facts relevant to this appeal were established in our previous 

decision in State v. Geran, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA99-03-054, 2002-Ohio-2599. Those facts 
Butler CA2017-04-041 

 - 2 - 

are as follows. 

{¶ 3} On December 16, 1994, Geran pled guilty to one count of robbery and one 

count of gross sexual imposition. Shortly after entering his guilty plea, on December 19, 

1994, the trial court sentenced Geran to consecutive sentences of 5 to 15 years on the 

robbery charge and 18 months on the gross sexual imposition charge. The record makes 

clear that the 18-month sentence imposed for gross sexual imposition was to be served 

subsequent to the 5-to-15-year sentence imposed for robbery, thereby imposing a 

consecutive, aggregate minimum prison sentence of six and one-half years.1

{¶ 4} On July 1, 1997, the General Assembly enacted R.C. Chapter 2950, more 

commonly known as Megan's Law, which amended the state's sex offender registration 

process. As a result, on February 19, 1999, the trial court held a hearing pursuant to then 

R.C. 2950.09(B), adjudicated Geran a sexual predator, and ordered him to comply with the 

registration requirements of R.C. Chapter 2950. 

{¶ 5} Geran appealed to this court challenging the trial court's decision requiring him 

to register as a sexual predator. At that time, an offender was required to register as a 

sexual predator if the offender satisfied one of the three categories enumerated in R.C. 

2950.04(A). Those categories provided: 

(1) Regardless of when the sexually oriented offense was 

committed, if the offender is sentenced for the sexually oriented 

offense to a prison term, a term of imprisonment, or any other 

type of confinement and if, on or after July 1, 1997, the offender 

is released in any manner from the prison term, term of 

imprisonment, or confinement * * *. 

(2) Regardless of when the sexually oriented offense was 

committed, if the offender is sentenced for a sexually oriented 

offense on or after July 1, 1997, and if division (A)(1) of this 

section does not apply * * *. 

 

1. Geran was also convicted of one count of assault and sentenced to a six-month prison term to be served 

concurrently with his sentences for robbery and gross sexual imposition. 
Butler CA2017-04-041 

 - 3 - 

(3) If the sexually oriented offense was committed prior to July 

1, 1997, if neither division (A)(1) nor division (A)(2) of this section 

applies, and if, immediately prior to July 1, 1997 the offender was 

a habitual sex offender who was required to register under 

Chapter 2950. of the Revised Code * * *. 

{¶ 6} In summarizing Geran's argument as to why the trial court erred by requiring 

him to register as a sexual predator, this court stated: 

Appellant argues that he does not meet any of the criteria under 

R.C. 2950.04(A) and is not required to comply with the 

registration and reporting requirements of R.C. Chapter 2950. 

Specifically, appellant argues he completed his sentence for the 

gross sexual imposition conviction before the July 1, 1997 

effective date of R.C. Chapter 2950. It therefore follows, 

appellant contends, that he is only currently serving a sentence 

for the robbery charge and is accordingly not required to comply 

with the registration requirements of R.C. 2950.04(A). 

Geran, 2002-Ohio-2599 at ¶ 8. 

{¶ 7} In support of this position, Geran cited two cases: State v. Bellman, 86 Ohio 

St.3d 208 (1999) and State v. Benson, 12th Dist. Butler No. 99-11-194, 2000 Ohio App. 

LEXIS 3862 (Aug. 28, 2000). This court, however, found neither case applicable since both 

offenders in those cases completed and were released from their respective terms of 

imprisonment following their convictions for sexually-oriented offenses well before the July 1, 

1997 effective date of R.C. Chapter 2950. Id. at ¶ 9. In so holding, this court went on to 

state: 

Appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment 

for robbery and gross sexual imposition. The aggregate 

minimum term appellant was required to serve was six and onehalf years. At the time of the classification hearing, appellant 

was still serving his aggregate sentence. Other courts have held 

that where a defendant is ordered to serve a term of 

imprisonment for a sexually oriented offense consecutive to a 

sentence for another offense, the defendant is considered to be 

serving a term of incarceration for a sexually oriented offense 

throughout the aggregate sentence and is therefore subject to 

the registration requirements of R.C. 2950.04(A). 

We accordingly conclude that appellant was serving a term of 
Butler CA2017-04-041 

 - 4 - 

incarceration related to a sexually oriented offense at the time his 

classification hearing was held and he is therefore subject to the 

registration requirements of R.C. Chapter 2950. 

(Internal citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 10-11. 

{¶ 8} This court also stated, albeit in a footnote: 

In its sentencing entry, the trial court first imposed the 5 to 15 

year term for the robbery charge. The entry then sentenced 

appellant to 18 months on the gross sexual imposition charge 

with said sentence "to run consecutively with the sentence 

imposed in [the robbery charge]." Thus, the first five years of 

appellant's sentence was arguably served on the robbery charge 

with the next eighteen months – including the period when 

appellant was classified as a sexual predator and ordered to 

register – constituting appellant's gross sexual imposition 

sentence. Appellant was clearly serving an aggregate sentence 

for a sexually oriented offense both at the time R.C. Chapter 

2950 went into effect and when appellant's classification hearing 

was held. 

Id. at ¶ 10, fn. 2. 

Geran did not appeal from this decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. 

{¶ 9} Nearly 15 years later, on November 23, 2016, Geran filed with the trial court a 

petition for sex offender re-classification arguing he should not have to comply with the 

registration requirements of the now former R.C. Chapter 2950. In support of this petition, 

Geran once again argued that he was not subject to the registration requirements since his 

18-month prison sentence for gross sexual imposition was completed prior to the July 1, 

1997 effective date of R.C. Chapter 2950. Just as this court had done previously, the trial 

court disagreed and denied Geran's petition on March 15, 2017. In so holding, the trial court 

noted that Geran was doing nothing more than "raising the same issues argued by convicted 

sex offenders across the State of Ohio throughout the state's multiple legislative 

machinations and ad nauseum legal appeals of relevant portions of the Revised Code." 

(Emphasis sic.) 

{¶ 10} Geran now appeals from the trial court's decision, raising a single assignment 
Butler CA2017-04-041 

 - 5 - 

of error for review. 

{¶ 11} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR 

SEX OFFENDER RE-CLASSIFICATION. 

{¶ 12} In his single assignment of error, Geran repeats the same argument alleging he 

is not subject to the registration requirements of the now former R.C. Chapter 2950 since his 

sentence for gross sexual imposition was completed prior to the July 1, 1997 effective date of 

R.C. Chapter 2950. In support of this claim, Geran relies heavily on the Ohio Supreme 

Court's decision in State v. Champion, 106 Ohio St.3d 120, 2005-Ohio-4098; and the First 

District Court of Appeals decision in Lewis v. Leis, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-080216, 2009-

Ohio-3096. In both of those cases, however, the respective courts were dealing with issues 

involving offenders who were sentenced to concurrent sentences for the two crimes at issue, 

not consecutive, aggregate sentences as in this case. This fact, standing alone, makes both 

Champion and Leis wholly distinguishable from the case at bar. Geran's claim otherwise 

lacks merit. 

{¶ 13} Again, as this court held previously when faced with this exact same issue 

nearly 15 years ago: 

Appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment 

for robbery and gross sexual imposition. The aggregate 

minimum term appellant was required to serve was six and onehalf years. At the time of the classification hearing, appellant 

was still serving his aggregate sentence. Other courts have held 

that where a defendant is ordered to serve a term of 

imprisonment for a sexually oriented offense consecutive to a 

sentence for another offense, the defendant is considered to be 

serving a term of incarceration for a sexually oriented offense 

throughout the aggregate sentence and is therefore subject to 

the registration requirements of R.C. 2950.04(A). 

(Internal citations omitted.) Geran, 2002-Ohio-2599 at ¶ 10. 

{¶ 14} This court further stated: 

Appellant was clearly serving an aggregate sentence for a 
Butler CA2017-04-041 

 - 6 - 

sexually oriented offense both at the time R.C. Chapter 2950 

went into effect and when appellant's classification hearing was 

held. 

Id. at ¶ 10, fn. 2. 

{¶ 15} Nothing about the cases cited by Geran convinces this court otherwise nor do 

we feel it necessary to reconsider out prior decision, for it is still clear that Geran was serving 

a consecutive, aggregate prison sentence for a sexually-oriented offense both at the time 

R.C. Chapter 2950 went into effect and when Geran's classification hearing was held. 

Therefore, finding no merit to Geran's arguments raised herein, Geran's single assignment of 

error is overruled. 

{¶ 16} Judgment affirmed. 

 RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.