Phipps v. State

{¶ 23} I concur in the majority's conclusion that the state proved the fact of conviction. I dissent from the determination that the New York conviction was not substantially equivalent to a violation of a registration-eligible Ohio sexually-oriented offense. I agree with Phipps that he is entitled to a hearing under former *761R.C. 2950.09(F), and would remand the case for the hearing.

{¶ 24} "Substantially equivalent" does not mean "identical." "Substantially equivalent" means being largely but not wholly alike in signification or import. Lloyd , 132 Ohio St.3d 135, 2012-Ohio-2015, 970 N.E.2d…