Supreme Court of the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH I Anthony J. DeNoma duly cautioned of the penalty of peijury do hereby solemnly declare, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 44.2 that the grounds of this instant Petition for Rehearing are limited to intervening circumstances of a substantive and controlling effect, and that it is presented in good faith for expedition and not for delay. akl(44. 'Oct&eiz5 Anthony J.ôeNoma 308-83 P.O. Box 7q0, Mdison C-ecf1c,i Iicih%de Lohcloh, OJio q31q0 P!ohe (7'1o)852-777; Fax: 85234a CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Anthony J. DeNoma, duly cautioned of the penalty of perjury do hereby solemnly declare that on this date, O4oL,er I , 2018, as required by Supreme Court Rule 291 have placed the enclosed Application for Rehearing in sealed envelopes deposited with designated prison mail clerk, with payment for required First Class Postage, one addressed to this Court, and the another addressed for service to Defendants attorneys: Ohio Attorney General Eric E, Mphy, SM-e 5olc+or 30 East Broad Street, 17' Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215 -3 4f 2iB aj40U-j,'51 O&Wt"O~ Anthony J. beRoma, /0. COMPLAIN-r AEF1PAVrr Ste4rP The Caeatid &4s I Awihohy J. PeNom (affinthe-eih, herea#el-DeNoIb1A) beJ duly c4ut,nedot'1he pehalfy ofp.rjurydo hereby sole rnnlydecloa-e 411 sidements rnJ lb i4i het-&n ud f'oIlowYi 22 page S1ateme,t of 1I,e Case'facts lo be f-ue, fct ,o.J qpij etccurafe. S0 help me GOD j i) Oh aiicl evei-5,ice Septenbar 26) 2001 Ram; lt4n County, 'iid Ohio state ucl;c;a(nd executive of)ls have co,duced a cowf;nusngsbve-sive Conspi?-acy 4galh$f DeNomcts ts cctus the depI-i4tIon of De.Nomas subsh five h'ts Uhdet- ccloi- o4 /W, h Vs0i4fi0fl Afhe tJ&feJ 5f4es Ct-nng1 Code Tt+Ie 18 Sectohs 2'4 I, 1242, 5371, 5/001, 1/581, S I58 4 § /5'4, nd J79(o2, khewin9ly 4"d willfully srept-eseiti'g, -PA(5fyihg, concegli, covei- op by fe-;ck, scl,etne) a' 4evice,1/e matet-la! 4ct 1 Ii-audQIenfIyobt411 'md willoily Iv1i5a9ply federal funds fi-om Ifte Department fJvctice Violent Offendei- Xncarceoon and Tiuth-hr$ehteftcng Incentive Qi.atit,og i-am under 3'l (/1SC /2103 and 5 ILO. 1 cort;nue 1hc4rceratoft of PeNo'na by c,nconstilvtional State custody, beyond the xptt-atin of his caSe-14W tei.m ofincsi-cet-fjon5 failing to simplemet7f Ike Trut1rI1rSenteMcthg" obecfsves to cissute proportona/ity, -eotsonab/e use of cot -ec/on4( 4qcii'#ies and progl-aPnS, tcI ciff?er lii'ness ,,, ct-tnInaj seh*ehthg in v,ok'jon Of 3g USC, f 10274 1 /0272J/ 2 35 2) tet46mq has L,eeh, and cotitue$ to be subjected to ex po.ct different uncoiist,W,Vonql UPH-atsoh4bIe hfuous arMli-at-y inkrp-e*tohs oft-rner laws,atd pun n'a've new/aw sex oetde- seritenci,g cmd post-t-eieace gtratio po1sees, un/flw fully i&n,ot- coned 9'? Yo pe-cenf, day -Pot- day of the ho"-man1otory 1nde4)nle /0 257'eaIr tnathnum sentence, and t)eNorna has nevt- seen ieleasecl fim pt-'son 3), PeNoma hos been, an contwe +o be s'vbjected fo manifest ;vs4e, Oh/a ul de vo.tfon of hs h4tjuc1gh1ent1h1frnOfl;fr1 Ate ctec&;s case-law &st /i,ne dfender re('af' /eal s1tus, ncL unlawfully deprived of his acguii-ed Statutory enfi4d su,stoj,tive one-thit-d deduction of $eiitCItC.e, Old 1eNorno, has heyet- beeh re/eased foni pt-;son; DeNohia suffers confnun9 ii+eparable ijut-y and hi-t-n from false 1rnprsonnie4 4onalanJ dspipor#on4te c-ueland uitosua(puiiihment.s lliat could not have Leen Aocseeatble aflhe ne of DeHrnns Apt,;( 16; 1995 f 'nal joci8metifr, t-ehder~nS DeNonia's5o/typlea a-eement u&ntellØ/e, onknoi-dn3, and involuha,v, "nd dey;n, eNoma hs 4unc6mehQsvW,4j1t,'e -13hts of eivaI pt-ofecVon; 5) Foe twot-ethan 177ea1-s, 5sice The Ocfoet- ZOO/ exprat;on O NNornas case-iawtei-m of itwm-cet-afion and su1stantive parole etzrl;fy t-eease date, DeNob,q has been unbwifully ,-estt-amned of his I;berty by concti'futohal Oee cus1dy and subjected to slavery of hwofuntary servilude, cnc de&ed t-enedes of due course of law and redress n 1he coutd; See following 22.pae 3tteenenf of -lhe Case and Facts; STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Ohio's old-law existing and operating prior to July 1, 1996, provided for certain substantive rehabilitation of first time offenders, including: a.) exemption from sex offender registration under former Revised Code (R.C.) Chapter 2950, 130 Ohio Laws, 669, Ohio's Habitual Sex Offender Registration Law existing prior to January 1, 1997; and b.) the statutorily entitled substantive one- third deduction from sentence parole eligibility liberty right, that by law shall not be forfeited for any reason, created by former R.C. Sections 2967.13(A)(L), 2967.19(A)(E) and 2967.193(A)(C) existing prior to July 1, 1996; together with the reasonable expectation of the implicit protection of the family victims from public exposure and humiliation of a trial, which induced DeNoma's negotiated guilty plea agreement, and of which all was instituted by final judgment as the law of DeNoma's case in State of Ohio v. Anthony J. DeNoma (April 6. 1995). Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas No. B951322 and B952232. Judge Thomas H. Crush of the original sentencing court entered its judgment of sentence in DeNoma's case without any duty to register under the existing laws, implicitly incorporating into the judgment a finding that DeNoma had no duty to register, establishing DeNoma's stare decisis case-law rehabilitation legal status and final judgment immunity. And Ohio Constitution Article II, Section 28 prohibition against retroactive laws, or laws impairing obligation of contracts, established and define DeNoma's Article I. Section 1 inalienable rights. See State v. Williams (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 513, 521, 523, 524. Wherefore Ohio's Constitution Separation of powers Doctrine and Article I. Section 10 Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited both: a.) a trial court from reopening or reconsidering any issue of DeNoma's case; and b.) any remedial or civil administrative actions that further effectively disadvantage and / or deprive DeNoma of his case-law rehabilitation legal status and final judgment immunity. See State v. Lovejoy. 79 Ohio St.3d 440.443; State v. Gustafson (1996). 76 Ohio St.3d 425, 437. 440-442; and State v. Raber (2012). 134 Ohio St.3d 350. 1. "In 1996, the General Assembly rewrote R.C. Chapter 2950 as part of Am. Sub: H.B. 180 ("H.B. 180"), 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2560, 2601 ... Some provisions became effective January 1, 1997, including the classification provision, R.C. 2950.09. Section 3 of H.B. 180, 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2668. Other provisions, such as the registration and notification requirements, R.C. 2959.04, .05, .06, J, and .,fl, became effective July 1, 1997. Section 5 of H.B. 180, 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2669." State v. Cook (1998). 83 Ohio St.3d 406. In the above controlling case-law Cook. supra, Tony Cook's plea and sentence were accomplished after the January 1, 1997 effective date of Ohio's Megan's Law H.B. 180 R.C. Chapter 2950 Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) requirements. See State v. Cook (1998). 83 Ohio St.3d 404. Wherefore the registration duties, obligations, and liabilities have never been properly determined to be constitutionally retroactive in cases that were previously final under prior laws. Only the R.C. § 2950.09(C) Classification provision was specifically made retroactive providing for adjudication as a sexual predator or a habitual sex offender, only for offenders who were not first time offenders previously exempt from registration by final judgment under the former law immediately prior to the January 1, 1997 effective date of Ohio's H.B. 180 Megan's Law. See and State v. Bellman (1999). 86 Ohio St.3d 208; Mason v. Griffin (2000). 90 Ohio St.3d 299, 302; State v. Taylor (2003). 100 Ohio St.3d 173-174; and State v. Champion (2005). 106 Ohio St.3d 120, and the July 31, 2003 Senate Bill 5 amendment R.C. § 2950.09(C)(1)X3) clarification. In 1997, pursuant to the H.B. 180 Megan's Law R.C. § 2950.09(C) the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), submitted to DeNoma's sentencing Court Judge Thomas H. Crush, its recommendation that DeNoma be classified as a sexual predator, and subsequently (6 1/2 years after sentencing in Case No. B952232, and after DeNoma had successfully completed the 12 month Polaris Phase I Residential Sex Offender Treatment Program from 3-25-1997 through 3-25- 1998), on October 5, 2001, expecting DeNoma's imminent release on parole, Judge Thomas Crush denied the recommended reclassification of DeNoma, by a final judgment determination finding that DeNoma was not likely to reoffend, neither a sexual predator, nor a habitual sex offender. Thereafter, 2, implicating equal protection of the doctrines of stare decisis law of his case, final judgment immunity, issue preclusion, collateral estoppel, and resjudicata. See State v. Dick (2000). 738 N.E.2d 456. "One study suggests that sex offenders (a category that includes a great diversity of criminals, not just pedophiles) are actually less likely to recidivate than other sorts of criminals. See Lawrence A.