From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Housley

Supreme Court of Ohio
Sep 22, 2004
2004 Ohio 4780 (Ohio 2004)

Opinion

Nos. 2003-1084, 2003-1486.

Submitted July 20, 2004.

Decided September 22, 2004.

APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Clermont County, No. CA2002-07-060, 2003-Ohio-2223.

Donald W. White, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and David Henry Hoffmann, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

R. Daniel Hannon, Clermont County Public Defender, and Robert F. Benintendi, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.


{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, ___ N.E.2d ___, and the causes remanded to the trial court.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O'Connor, JJ., concur.

Stratton and O'Donnell, JJ., dissent.


{¶ 2} I continue to disagree with the majority's holding that R.C. 2929.15(B) and 2929.19(B)(5) require the trial court to notify the offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for a violation of the conditions of the sanction as a prerequisite to imposing a prison term on the offender for a later violation. Therefore, I continue to dissent from the application of that holding consistent with my dissenting opinion in State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, ___ N.E.2d ___.

O'DONNELL, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.


Summaries of

State v. Housley

Supreme Court of Ohio
Sep 22, 2004
2004 Ohio 4780 (Ohio 2004)
Case details for

State v. Housley

Case Details

Full title:The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Housley, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Sep 22, 2004

Citations

2004 Ohio 4780 (Ohio 2004)
2004 Ohio 4780
814 N.E.2d 836

Citing Cases

State v. Whited

As such, a remand is necessary to allow the trial court to determine whether appellant's participation at CCC…