State v. Smith - Violent Offender Registration Under Sierah's Law

Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 15, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Smith

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 1363
• Docket Number: 31124

• Judges: Flagg Lanzinger

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (19.2K)

• PDF

Syllabus

R.C. 2903.42, R.C. 2903.41, Sierah's Law, plain error

Combined Opinion

                        by [Judith Ann Lanzinger](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8112/judith-ann-lanzinger/)

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2026-Ohio-1363.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 31124

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
KAELYN SMITH COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR-2023-06-2146

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: April 15, 2026

FLAGG LANZINGER, Judge.

{¶1} Kaelyn Smith appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common

Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court reverses and remands the matter for further

proceedings consistent with this decision.

I.

{¶2} A grand jury indicted Smith on one count of felony murder and two counts of

felonious assault, all with accompanying firearm specifications. Smith later reached a plea

agreement with the State whereby she agreed to plead guilty to felony murder in violation of R.C.

2903.02(B) and a one-year firearm specification. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the

counts of felonious assault and the accompanying firearm specifications.

{¶3} The trial court held a combined change of plea and sentencing hearing. At the

beginning of the hearing, the State informed the trial court that Smith “does have to register as a

violent offender, so we need that form.” The trial court acknowledged Smith would have to fill
2

out a violent offender form. Defense counsel then stated: “We will waive the reading of that

paperwork . . . and we would agree that that statutorily applies to this case.” The trial court

indicated it would have Smith sign the form, and then confirmed with defense counsel that Smith

was “waiving [her] right to have those rights explained to her prior to sentencing . . . .” The record

contains no further mention of the violent offender form until the bailiff asked: “Violent offender

form?” on the last page of the transcript, presumably inquiring as to its status. The trial court then

went off the record.

{¶4} Smith now appeals, raising one assignment of error for this Court’s review.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY FAILING TO
INFORM MS. SMITH OF HER RIGHTS AND REQUIREMENTS AS A
PRESUMED VIOLENT OFFENDER PURSUANT TO R.C. []2903.41 ET
SEQ.

{¶5} In her assignment of error, Smith argues that the trial court committed plain error

by failing to inform her of her rights and responsibilities as a violent offender under R.C. 2903.41

et seq. The State concedes this error. For the following reasons, this Court sustains Smith’s

assignment of error.

{¶6} In reviewing a felony sentence, “[t]he . . . standard for review is not whether the

sentencing court abused its discretion.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “[A]n appellate court may vacate or

modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence” that:

(1) “the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes[,]” or (2) “the

sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶

1.

{¶7} “On March 20, 2019, the General Assembly enacted S.B. 231 (‘Sierah’s Law’),

requiring the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation to establish and maintain the Violent Offender
3

Database (‘VOD’) and to make it available to federal, state, and local law-enforcement officers.”

State v. Barrett, 2021-Ohio-3956, ¶ 2 (9th Dist.); R.C. 2903.41 et seq. (codifying Sierah’s Law).

“The law establishes a rebuttable presumption that certain violent offenders are required to enroll

in the VOD in person, reenroll annually in person, and provide notice of any change of address for

ten years after the initial enrollment.” Barrett at ¶ 6.

{¶8} Sierah’s Law provides that a trial court must inform a defendant who is classified

as a violent offender of certain rights and responsibilities “before sentencing . . . .” R.C.

2903.42(A)(1)(a). It also provides that the “judge . . . shall require the violent offender to read and

sign a form stating that the violent offender has received and understands the notice.” R.C.

2903.42(C).

{¶9} Here, Smith pleaded guilty to felony murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B).

Consequently, Smith was classified as a violent offender under R.C. 2903.41(A)(1)(a), and the

trial court was required to inform her of her rights and responsibilities under Sierah’s Law before

sentencing her. R.C. 2903.41(A)(1)(a); R.C. 2903.42(A)(1)(a). As noted above, defense counsel

waived a reading of these rights and responsibilities, but the record does not contain an executed

violent offender form. Thus, the record does not affirmatively indicate that the trial court informed

Smith of her rights and responsibilities under Sierah’s Law before sentencing her. While defense

counsel did not object below, this amounts to plain error. See State v. Wooden, 2022-Ohio-814, ¶

26-29 (8th Dist.) (applying the plain error standard); see also State v. Baker, 2021-Ohio-4544, ¶

21-22 (12th Dist.) (concluding that the trial court’s failure to provide the defendant with proper

notice under R.C. 2903.42(A)(1)(a) rendered the defendant’s sentence contrary to law under R.C.

2953.08(G)(2)). As a result, this Court reverses and remands the matter for the trial court to
4

provide Smith with proper notice under Sierah’s Law. See R.C. 2903.42. Smith’s assignment of

error is sustained.

II.

{¶10} Smith’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Summit County

Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent

with this decision.

Judgment reversed,
and cause remanded.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellee.

JILL FLAGG LANZINGER
FOR THE COURT
5

CARR, P. J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

ALAN M. MEDVICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and C. RICHLEY RALEY, JR., Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.