TO PROVIDE THE NOTICE DOES NOT AFFECT THE DUTY TO REGISTER. THE DUTY TO REGISTER DOES NOT, AS COOPER ARGUES, ARISE FROM THE HEARING OR A COURT ORDER.
{¶ 24} RATHER, A SEXUALLY ORIENTED OFFENDER'S DUTY TO REGISTER IS IMPOSED BY OPERATION OF LAW UPON CONVICTION OF A SEXUALLY ORIENTED OFFENSE. SEE STATE V. HAYDEN AT ¶ 15. THUS THE TRIAL COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PERFORM ANY ACT BEYOND ENTERING A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION, A SEXUALLY ORIENTED OFFENSE, FOR COOPER'S DUTY TO REGISTER TO ARISE. BUT THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE TRUE IF THE TRIAL COURT ATTEMPTED TO CLASSIFY COOPER AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR AT A HEARING HELD FIVE YEARS LATE. FOR EXAMPLE, R.C. 2950.09(B)(1)(A) MANDATES THAT "[T]HE JUDGE WHO IS TO IMPOSE SENTENCE ON A PERSON WHO IS CONVICTED OF OR PLEADS GUILTY TO A SEXUALLY ORIENTED OFFENSE * * * SHALL CONDUCT A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE OFFENDER IS A SEXUAL PREDATOR IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES APPLY: (I) REGARDLESS OF WHEN THE SEXUALLY ORIENTED OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED, THE OFFENDER IS TO BE SENTENCED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1997, FOR A SEXUALLY ORIENTED OFFENSE THAT IS NOT A REGISTRATION-EXEMPT SEXUALLY ORIENTED OFFENSE AND THAT IS NOT A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE." SEE, ALSO, STATE V. GOLDEN AT ¶ 36.
{¶ 25} THE FAILURE TO REGISTER WITH THE SHERIFF IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE HERE AS A FOURTH-DEGREE FELONY, PURSUANT TO R.C. 2950.99(A)(1)(A)(II). CONVICTION WITHOUT NOTIFICATION BY THE TRIAL COURT THAT AN OFFENDER HAS A DUTY TO REGISTER, HOWEVER, VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS REQUIRED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW. IN RECOGNITION THAT IT WAS THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY COOPER OF HIS DUTY TO REGISTER THAT HAD KEPT COOPER FROM REGISTERING AND ANNUALLY VERIFYING HIS ADDRESS SINCE 1999, THE COURT CREDITED COOPER WITH THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD. COOPER WAS ORDERED TO REGISTER AND TO CONTINUE TO VERIFY HIS ADDRESS UNTIL JANUARY 2009, THE END OF THE ORIGINAL TEN-YEAR PERIOD. SEE R.C. 2950.04, 2950.06(B)(2) AND 2950.07(B)(3). AS COOPER WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED NOTICE TO REGISTER, SEE STATE V. SMITH (JUNE 23, 1999), 9th DIST. NO. 98CA007070, THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IS OVERRULED.
MODIFICATION OF THE SENTENCE {¶ 26} IN HIS SECOND AND THIRD ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR, COOPER CONTENDS THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT MODIFIED HIS ORIGINAL SENTENCE OF A 90-DAY WORK-RELEASE PROGRAM AT TALBERT HOUSE AND ORDERED HIM TO SERVE FIFTEEN DAYS' CONFINEMENT IN THE HAMILTON COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER. WE DISAGREE.
{¶ 27} THE STATE, CITING AN UNREPORTED DECISION OF THE ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ARGUES THAT COOPER'S APPEAL OF HIS SENTENCE HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT BY THE COMPLETION OF HIS ENTIRE TERM OF COMMUNITY CONTROL AND INCARCERATION. THE ARGUMENT OVERLOOKS THIS COURT'S DECISION IN STATE V. HARRIS (1996), 109 OHIO APP.3d 873, 875, 673 N.E.2d 237. IN HARRIS, AN APPEAL FROM A CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WAS NOT RENDERED MOOT BY THE COMPLETION OF THE TERM OF CONFINEMENT IMPOSED IN THE TRIAL COURT'S