{"id":2331,"date":"2020-12-14T14:08:59","date_gmt":"2020-12-14T20:08:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2331"},"modified":"2020-12-14T14:08:59","modified_gmt":"2020-12-14T20:08:59","slug":"state-v-townsend-ohio-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/12\/14\/state-v-townsend-ohio-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. Townsend (Ohio 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

State v. Townsend, No. 5586 (Ohio 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellee was convicted of several sex offenses and, under state law, was designated as a sexually violent predator and was thus subjected to enhanced sentencing. Appellee appealed, arguing that the application of that designation to him violated the Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution. The Ohio Court of Appeals agreed that its application in Appellee’s case was unconstitutional, and the state sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the retroactive application of the SVP designation in Appellee’s case violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n