Legal Opinion

State v. Blankenship (Slip Opinion)

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 2015No. 2014-0363PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLanzinger, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Travis Blankenship, challenges as cruel and unusual punishment the sex-offender-registration and address-verification requirements imposed upon him as part of his sentence for violating R.C. 2907.04 by engaging in unlawful sexual conduct with M.H., a 15-year-old, when he was 21. Because we hold that the Tier II registration requirements imposed upon him are not so extreme as to be grossly disproportionate to the crime or shocking to a reasonable person and to the community’s sense of justice, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

I. Background

{¶ 2} In 2011,…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Atkins v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Roper v. SimmonsSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  3. Graham v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  4. Weems v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  5. Doe v. PoritzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. State v. DelvallieOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
  2. State v. Buttery (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  3. State v. PettyOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  4. State v. MorrisOhio Supreme Court · 2022
  5. State v. IrvinOhio Court of Appeals · 2020

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API