|
Court
News Ohio
Appeals Court
Upholds ‘Adam Walsh Act’ Provision
By Dennis Whalen
June 18, 2013
The First District Court of Appeals has upheld as constitutional a
provision of Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act (AWA) that requires juvenile courts
to sentence certain juvenile sex offenders to registration requirements
that extend beyond the defendant’s 21st birthday.
In a 2-1 decision announced June 12, the court of appeals held that a
juvenile offender does not have a fundamental right to have the
punishment imposed by a juvenile court for a crime he committed as a
minor terminate when he reaches the age of 21. The court held
further that because maintaining current residency information on
juveniles convicted of serious sex offenses for three years after they
complete a term of juvenile commitment is rationally related to the
government’s interest in protecting the public and holding offenders
accountable for their actions, the challenged AWA provision does not
violate a defendant’s right to due process under the U.S. or Ohio
constitutions.
The case involved a Cincinnati youth identified in court records as
Raheem L., who was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act
when he was 16 years old that would have constituted gross sexual
imposition had he been an adult. The Hamilton County Juvenile Court
committed Raheem to the legal custody of the Department of Youth
Services until his 21st birthday, but suspended that commitment and
placed him on probation. The juvenile court further classified Raheem
as a juvenile offender registrant and a Tier II sex
offender/child-victim offender under R.C. 2152.83(A) and imposed the
mandatory registration requirements of R.C. Chapter 2950, as amended by
the AWA, for a maximum compliance period of 20 years.
Raheem appealed, pointing out that because he was classified as a Tier
II offender, under the AWA he was not eligible to petition for
declassification and removal of his registration requirements until
three years after completing his suspended term of commitment -
effectively extending his sentence for a juvenile offense until his
24th birthday. His attorneys argued that by imposing punishment
for delinquency that would extend beyond his 21st birthday, the
juvenile court violated his right to due process under the state and
federal constitutions…
For the rest of this article and more, click here
|
|
|
|
