model sexual offender classification hearing in Ohio

2020See Douglas, 20 Ohio St.3d at 36 , 485 N.E.2d 711 ; State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158, 166 , 743 N.E.2d 881 (2001) (suggesting that a model sexual-offender-classification hearing should include an on-the-record discussion of the statutory factors under former R.C. 2950.09).

2020See Douglas, 20 Ohio St.3d at 36 , 485 N.E.2d 711 ; State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158, 166 , 743 N.E.2d 881 (2001) (suggesting that a model sexual-offender-classification hearing should include an on-the-record discussion of the statutory factors under former R.C. 2950.09).

2018Former R.C. 2950.09(B)(3). {¶12} In Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158 , 2001-Ohio-247 , 743 N.E.2d 881 , the Supreme Court of Ohio set forth the model procedure for a classification hearing as follows: In a model sexual offender classification hearing, there are essentially three objectives.

2004See, e.g., Meade; State v. Watts (May 29, 1998), Montgomery App. No. 16738. {¶ 19} In State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158 , 2001-Ohio-247 , at 166, the Supreme Court set forth the components for a model sexual offender classification hearing.

2007(Emphasis added.) Id. at 166 , citing State v. Thompson (1999), 140 Ohio App.3d 638 , 748 N.E.2d 1144 . {¶ 6} Here, the trial court failed to discuss on the record the particular evidence and factors upon which it relied in determining that Fulton is likely to engage in sexually oriented offenses in the future and, therefore, should be designated a sexual predator.

2002A. {¶ 29} We first consider Garrie's argument that the trial court violated his right to due process when it conducted the sexual offender classification hearing. {¶ 30} While the statute does not require a trial court to make explicit findings regarding relevant statutory factors, see Hannold ; State v. Smith , (July 20, 1998) Hocking App. No. 97CA10, in a model sexual offender classification hearing, the trial court considers all statutory factors and discusses on the record "the particular evidence and factors upon which it relies in making its determination * * *." Eppinger , 91 Ohio St.3d

2002He is correct is asserting that without adequate discussion of the requisite statutory factors by the court at a sexual predator hearing, the court errs in designating an offender a sexual predator. {¶ 11} In State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 , 426 , the Supreme Court of Ohio explained: "The statute does not require the court to list the criteria, but only to `consider all relevant factors, including' the criteria in R.C. 2950.09 (B)(2) in making his or her findings." In State v. Eppinger (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 158 the Court described how a model sex offender hearing should be conducted:

2002We disagree because the Eppinger court used the word "should" instead of the word "required." Eppinger did not overrule State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 .

2002(Emphasis added.) Recently, in State v. Eppinger (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 157 , 158 , 743 N.E.2d 881 , the court adopted the following model procedure for sexual offender classification hearings: In a model sexual offender classification hearing, there are essentially three objectives.

2002Finally, he urges that the court abused its discretion in failing to consider any of the statutory factors listed in R.C. 2950.09 (B)(2). {¶ 19} In State v. Eppinger (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 157 , 158 , 743 N.E.2d 881 , the court adopted the following model procedure for sexual offender classification hearings: {¶ 20} In a model sexual offender classification hearing, there are essentially three objectives.

2001State v. Hardie (Jan. 4, 2001), Washington App. No 00CA14, unreported; State v. Bartis (Dec. 9, 1997), Franklin App. No. 97APA05-600, unreported, citing Kansas v. Hendricks (1997), 521 U.S. 346 and Heller v. Doe (1993), 509 U.S. 312 , affirmed (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 9 .

2001State v. Hardie (Jan. 4, 2001), Washington App. No 00CA14, unreported; State v. Bartis (Dec. 9, 1997), Franklin App. No. 97APA05-600, unreported, citing Kansas v. Hendricks (1997), 521 U.S. 346 and Heller v. Doe (1993), 509 U.S. 312 , affirmed (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 9 .

2001State v. Hardie (Jan. 4, 2001), Washington App. No 00CA14, unreported; State v. Bartis (Dec. 9, 1997), Franklin App. No. 97APA05-600, unreported, citing Kansas v. Hendricks (1997), 521 U.S. 346 and Heller v. Doe (1993), 509 U.S. 312 , affirmed (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 9 .