Supreme Court decisions have been heavily relied upon by legislators, and other courts in their own constitutional decision, mainly upholding the registration and notification laws. Moreover, the court analyzed the applicability of two amendments passed after Bolin moved to Oklahoma in Ultimately the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that, although the Oklahoma Department of Corrections had been applying all of the amendments retroactively, the Oklahoma Legislature did not intend to apply the new three-tier-scheme retroactively. Regardless of how one thinks the equal protection claim should have been evaluated, whether Hofsheier was correctly decided, or whether the majority in Johnson demonstrated sufficient deference to precedent, one thing is certain: The court said there was no rational distinction between those offenders and those convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse, as to which the trial court has discretion as to whether to require registration. A retroactive application of the amendment would effectively double the registration requirements for individuals such as Starkey, who was initially sentenced to only ten years of probation. Nor, he said, do the different intent elements of the crimes justify the distinction. The Johnson majority found that there were two major distinctions. In the Johnson case, the decision of Hofscheier was reevaluated and disapproved because it had depended on a finding that there was no rationale for a distinction between nonforcible intercourse with a minor and nonforcible oral sex. The Court held that the Missouri Constitution's provision prohibiting laws retrospective in operation no longer exempts individuals from registration if they are subject to the independent Federal obligation created under the Sexual Offenders Registration and Notification Act SORNA , 42 U. In addressing Bolin's argument against registration, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reconciled multiple subsections of OSORA dealing with the registration requirements of individuals convicted of sex offenses outside of Oklahoma. Ohio[ edit ] In , The Supreme Court of Ohio found automatic lifetime registration for juveniles to be unconstitutional. Before the amendments, registration was only required for ten years. His practice focuses on all issues relating to the defense of those accused of criminal activity.