State ex rel. Clay v. Gee
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying relief to appellant, James H. Clay.
{¶ 2} On July 13, 2011, this court ruled that it was unconstitutional to apply sex-offender classifications under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act, R.C. Chapter 2950 as amended by 2007 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10, to defendants convicted prior to the effective date of that legislation. State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108, syllabus; see In re Bruce S., 134 Ohio St.3d 477, 2012-Ohio-5696, 983 N.E.2d 350 (discussing the effective date of Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act). Pursuant to Williams,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State ex rel. Fontanella v. KontosOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- In re Bruce S.Ohio Supreme Court · 2012
- State ex rel. Culgan v. CollierOhio Supreme Court · 2012
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. ClayOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
- Bunkley v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
- State ex re.l Jenkins v. Belmont Cty. Common Pleas CourtOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
- State ex rel. Lusane v. PittmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
- State ex rel. Tenney v. RiceOhio Court of Appeals · 2024
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.