Full text
State of Ohio v. Roger Christman
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] JUDGMENT ENTRY.
This appeal, considered on the accelerated calendar under App.R. 11.1 (E) and Loc.R. 12, is not controlling authority except as provided in S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 2 (G) (1).
Defendant-appellant, Roger Christman, appeals his classification as a sexual predator pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2950. In his first three assignments of error, he contends that Ohio's sexual-predator statutes are unconstitutional. However, both the Ohio Supreme Court and this court have already rejected Christman's arguments, and we therefore overrule these assignments of error. See State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404,700 N.E.2d 570; State v. Lance (Feb. 13, 1998), Hamilton App. Nos. C-970301, C-970282 and C-970283, unreported, affirmed (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 17, 701 N.E.2d 692. See, also, State v. Boeddeker (Feb. 13, 1998), Hamilton App. No. C-970471, unreported.
In his fourth assignment of error, Christman contends that the trial court's judgment finding him to be a sexual predator is against the manifest weight of the evidence. After reviewing the record, we hold that the trial court had sufficient evidence before it to produce a firm belief or conviction that Christman is likely to commit another sexual offense. Consequently, the court properly found by clear and convincing evidence that Christman is a sexual predator. R.C. 2950.09 (B) (3);In re Adoption of Holcomb (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 361,481 N.E.2d 613; Lance, supra. See, also, State v. Lee (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 710, 716 N.E.2d 751. Accordingly, we overrule Christman's fourth assignment of error, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Further, a certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate, which shall be sent to the trial court under App.R. 27. Costs shall be taxed under App.R. 24.
Doan, P.J., Sundermann and Winkler, JJ. To the Clerk:
Enter upon the Journal of the Court on November 3, 1999 per order of the Court _______________________________. _______________________________________________ Presiding Judge