Court Opinion

ID: 9960261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 20:08:49.407568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:19.656209
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Overton, 2024-Ohio-1425.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                     RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                      JUDGES:
                                                   Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                         Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                                   Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
                                                   Case No. 2023 CA 0031
DANIEL W. OVERTON

        Defendant-Appellant                        OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                        Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                Pleas, Case No. 2021 CR 965

JUDGMENT:                                       Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         April 12, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                          For Defendant-Appellant

JODIE SCHUMACHER                                RANDALL E. FRY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY                            10 West Newlon Street
MARTIN I. NEWMAN                                Mansfield, Ohio 44902
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR
38 South Park Street
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0031                                                     2

Wise, J.

       {¶1}   Defendant-Appellant, Daniel W. Overton, appeals his conviction and

sentence for a violation of R.C. 2950.05, failure to provide notice of change of address.

Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

                         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶2}   In September, 2010, Overton was convicted of unlawful use of a minor in a

nudity-oriented material a violation of R.C. 2907.32.1 As a result of the conviction,

Overton was classified a Tier I sexually oriented offender requiring him to register his

address with the Sheriff’s Department for a period of fifteen years.

       {¶3}   This case arose in November, 2021, when Overton was indicted on one

count of Failure to Provide Notice of Change of Address, in violation of R.C.

2950.05(F)(1), a third-degree felony. The indictment stated that Overton was previously

convicted of a violation of R.C. 2950.04(E), failure to register as a sex offender in Morrow

County on October 27, 2020.

       {¶4}   Overton pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and incompetent to stand

trial. On February 11, 2022, forensic examinations were ordered to determine his

competency and his mental condition at the time of the offense [NGRI].

       {¶5}   On May 13, 2022, Overton was found not competent to stand trial and was

committed to Heartland Behavioral Health. Later, he was transferred to Timothy Moritz

1R.C. 2907.32 defines the crime of pandering obscenity. During the trial, the state moved
to amend the indictment to illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, a violation of
R. C. 2907.323. The trial court granted the motion over no objection by defense counsel,
Tr. III, 112-113.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0031                                                  3

Center, Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare, when he refused to take his medication and

became violent with staff, Tr. April 24, 2023, Judgment Entry, April 25, 2023.

      {¶6}   The trial court found Overton ineligible to use the NGRI defense when he

refused to be interviewed or participate in an evaluation. Tr. April 24, 2023, Judgment

Entry April 25, 2023.

      {¶7}   After one and a half years, Overton was found competent to stand trial and

a jury trial was held on May 9, 2023.

                                    Evidence at Trial

      {¶8}   When Overton moved out of the Volunteers of America Center in March,

2021, he reported to Richland County Sherriff employee, Alisa Finley, that he was

homeless living in downtown Mansfield by the Gazebo. Tr. II at 20. Overton reported that

he had no vehicle to register. Finley recorded Overton’s information in an “Offender

Watch” software program that allows her and other counties to record notes and Overton

was told by Finley that he must return for his periodic yearly registration on October 22,

2021. Finley also told Overton that if he moved from the Gazebo site, he was required to

report any change of address to the Richland County Sheriff’s Office.

      {¶9}   On October 23, 2021, Finley received a tip that Overton was in Delaware

County.

      {¶10} Delaware County Deputy Sheriffs had been dispatched to a boy scout camp

for an unidentified male, later identified as Overton, standing around a group of boys and

adults by a campfire. Overton told the Deputies he was just “enjoying the fire.” Overton

was carrying a backpack with his possessions including a sleeping bag or blanket. Tr. III,

at 54. He was issued a warning for trespassing and walked off the property by the Deputy
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0031                                                      4

Sheriffs. A warning letter that Overton had failed to register for his periodic registration

was also issued by the Richland County Deputy Sheriff and stapled on the Gazebo in

downtown Mansfield.

       {¶11} On October 25, 2021, Finley received another tip that Overton was in

Delaware County. Delaware County Deputy Sheriffs were dispatched to Ohio Wesleyan

University on a report of a suspicious person later identified as Overton. Overton had

joined a group of new college recruits and their parents touring the campus. Overton was

carrying his backpack with his possessions including a blanket or a sleeping bag. He also

had a bag of food. Tr. III, at 123. He was taken to Grady Memorial Hospital in Delaware

County for a mental health evaluation.

       {¶12} Because Overton did not report to Finley that he had moved from the

Gazebo in downtown Mansfield and because he did not report for his periodic yearly

mandatory registration, a warrant was issued for his arrest by Sergeant Alfrey of the

Richland County Sheriff’s Department.

       {¶13} Overton was found in Marion County on November 16, 2021 and arrested

on a warrant for failure to register as a sex offender. Tr. III, at 61.

       {¶14} After hearing this evidence and receiving instructions from the trial court,

the jury returned with a verdict of guilty to the charge of failing to notify the sheriff of a

change of address.

                                          Sentence

       {¶15} Overton returned to the trial court for sentencing on May 11, 2023. Overton

was sentenced to thirty six months on the underlying conviction, as well as a thirty six

month maximum enhancement as a repeat offender under R.C. 2950.99 (A)(1)(b)(iii). In
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0031                                                    5

all, Overton was sentenced to a prison term of seventy-two months with 488 days credit

for time served. Tr. IV, Sentencing at 183-184. 2

       {¶16} Overton appeals his conviction assigning one assignment of error.

                               ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

       {¶17} “THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF

LAW TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION OF THE CHARGES IN THE INDICTMENT AND

AS A RESULT, THE APPELLANT’S RIGHTS AS PROTECTED BY ARTICLE I,

SECTION SIXTEEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE 5TH AMENDMENT OF

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE VIOLATED.”

                                    Law and Analysis

       {¶18} In his only assignment of error, Overton claims that his judgment of

conviction is not supported by the sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.

       {¶19} An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence

is to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492,

paragraph two of the syllabus (1991); State v. Fluharty, 5th Dist., Stark No. 2011CA00231,

2012-Ohio-4258, ¶ 26.

2 Overton’s sentence was permitted for a repeat offender. Overton received a mandatory
three-year prison sentence. In addition to the mandatory three-year sentence, the trial
court imposed an additional prison term of 36 months. State v. Ashcraft, 171 Ohio St.3d
747, 2022-Ohio-4611, 220 N.E.3d 749, syllabus (”We hold that a three-year prison term
imposed under R.C. 2950.99(A)(2)(b) is to be imposed ‘[i]n addition to’ any prison term
imposed under ‘any other provision of law.’”)
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0031                                                        6

       {¶20} Under R.C. 2950.05(A), an offender must provide written notice of any

change of residence address to the sheriff with whom the offender most recently

registered at least 20 days prior to changing the residence address. If a residence address

change is not to a fixed address the offender must include a ‘detailed description of the

place or places at which the offender ... intends to stay’ not later than the end of the first

business day immediately following the date of the fixed residence.

       {¶21} R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) provides: “No person who is required to notify a sheriff

of a change of address pursuant to division (A) ... shall fail to notify the appropriate sheriff

in accordance with that division.”

       {¶22} Homelessness is not an excuse for failing to provide a change of address.

This Court has held that the purpose of the reporting statute is to locate and keep track

of sexually oriented offenders. State v. Parrish 5th Dist., Licking No. 00-CA-0070, 2000

WL 1862821 (Dec. 18, 2000) *1. (“[T]o allow a homeless defense to the registration

provision would frustrate the legislative purpose.”).

       {¶23} Change in address includes any circumstance in which the old address for

the sexual offender is no longer valid, regardless of whether the offender has a new

address. R.C. 2950.05(I). In other words, an address changes when one no longer lives

at the address given to the sheriff of the county in which the offender resides. State v.

Ohmer 162 Ohio App. 3d 150, 2005-Ohio-3487, 832 N.E.2d 1243, ¶ 18 (1st Dist.).

       {¶24} Thus, to prove Overton violated R.C. 2950.05, the state was required to

prove that he no longer lived in the vicinity of the Gazebo in downtown Mansfield, Ohio.

       {¶25} Circumstantial evidence is as strong as direct evidence. In re. D.G., 5th

Dist., Stark No. 2023 CA 00014, 2023-Ohio-3859, citing State v. Jenks, supra ¶ 29; State
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0031                                                    7

v. Sanchez-Sanchez, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga No. 110885, 2022-Ohio-4080, ¶ 117

(“Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires drawing of inferences that are

reasonably permitted by the evidence.”) “Circumstantial evidence is the proof of facts by

direct evidence from which the trier of fact may infer or derive by reasoning other facts in

accordance with the common experience of mankind.” State v. Wells, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga

No. 109787, 2021-Ohio-2585, ¶ 26.

       {¶26} Here, the state presented evidence that Overton was in Delaware County

at a boy scout camp on October 23, 2021 with his backpack full of his belongings including

his sleeping bag or a blanket. On October 25, 2021, the state presented evidence that

Overton was in Delaware County at Ohio Wesleyan College with his backpack full of his

possessions and a bag of food. And finally, on November 16 2021, the state presented

evidence that Overton was in Marion County. Overton also reported to the sheriff that he

did not own a vehicle.

       {¶27} The state presented overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Overton

had abandoned his residence in the vicinity of the Gazebo in downtown Mansfield, Ohio

and never reported a change of address to the sheriff of Richland County or reported that

he had moved from the Gazebo in downtown Mansfield.

       {¶28} So, too, the act of failing to register alone is sufficient to trigger criminal

punishments. State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 419, 700 N.E.2d 570 (1998). This Court

as well as most other appellate districts have held that R.C. 2950.05 [failing to register a

change of address] is a strict liability offense because it was passed for the good of the

public welfare regardless of the offender’s state of mind. State v. Smithhislen, 5th Dist.,

Knox No. 16 CA 27, 2017-Ohio-5725, 93 N.E.3d 1274, ¶ 37; State v. Ramsey, 12th Dist.,
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0031                                                      8

Fayette No. CA2022-02-003, 2022-Ohio-3389, ¶13 (lists cases from other districts

holding sexual offender registration laws are strict liability offenses). Therefore, the state

did not have to prove that Overton had a certain level of culpability or mental state to

prove him guilty of the offense.

       {¶29} We reject Overton’s sole assignment of error and affirm his conviction and

sentence.

                                      CONCLUSION

       {¶30} We overrule appellant’s sole assignment of error and affirm the judgment of

the Richland County Court of Common Pleas.

By: Wise, J.

Delaney, P. J., and

Hoffman, J. concur.

JWW/kt 0408