*1 the general public that the rule lesser [of varies the outcome of the offenses] case.” dismissing Rather than appeal having improvidently this as been

accepted, have parties fully after briefed the issues and presented their oral court, arguments before this we untangle should instead make the effort to this clarify case and I law on these fundamental dissent issues. therefore from the majority’s decision to dismiss this appeal having improvidently as been accepted. I would take the opportunity clarify regarding Ohio law the state of lesser lesser-degree included and in light offenses of Deanda and regarding right defendant’s to have sufficiently proven lesser-degree offenses considered the finder of fact rather than the judge. appellate Because the court came to erroneous conclusions on all of the issues,

foregoing I judgment would reverse the of the Ninth District Court of Appeals hold jury provided should have been a voluntary-man- slaughter instruction and that acquittal the murder did not render the error harmless when Davis was alternatively charged with felony murder. J., opinion. concurs the foregoing

Lanzinger, Walsh, Sheri Bevan County Summit Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard S. Kasay, Prosecuting Assistant Attorney, appellee. for

Timothy Defender, Young, Ohio Public Scott, K. Terrence Assistant Public Defender, appellant. Barclay’s Capital Servicing. Estate, Inc.,

Anderson v. Real d.b.a. Barclay’s Capital Estate, [Cite as Anderson v. Real 2013-Ohio-1933.] 2013.) May (No. February 2013—Decided 2011-0908—Submitted *2 O’Connor, C.J. case, questions of us on the certification state-law In this which is before

{¶ 1} Ohio, District of Western Court the Northern the United States District (“CSPA”), Act Division, Sales Practices we address whether the Ohio Consumer of servicing residential applies in R.C. Chapter codified it not. We determine that does loans. Background

Relevant facts, circumstances, and following The federal court provided {¶2} of from which the law arise: allegations questions Estate, Inc., Servicing doing HomEq business as Barclays Real Capital here, is a “mort- underlying petitioner action and

(“HomEq”), defendant mortgages in the business of residential engages servicer” gage bank, institution, any or other not a HomEq individuals. is defined R.C. 5725.01. payments loan HomEq applies and distributes “accepts,

4}{¶ assessments, doing with exercises fees, in connection so penalties and other particular mortgage to a charged applied fees or regarding discretion “from the and other services HomEq for its loan administration paid account.” mortgages.” generated by stream the consumers’ payment call centers departments customer HomEq “maintains service to call by HomEq are directed being with loans serviced which Ohio residents loans” and customers their “directs concerns about questions [or] loss options concerning it for to contact danger are in default or default who mitigation loan modification and further holds having authority itself out as customers, make any, substantive decisions which if will regarding receive loan modification agreements HomEq loss assistance.” mitigation “handles con- disputes loans,” sumer their regarding and executes loan “negotiates modification, customers,” forbearance and other agreements directly with “makes customer service related on its promises website to which consumers are of, directed the servicer.” It also “purchases homeowner’s insurance on behalf of, and at expense consumers who believes to have purchased insurance required by mortgage.” the note and court federal determined that the interpretation (C) may be determinative of the case it. pending Finding before no

controlling precedent law, on the determinative issue Ohio case the federal court certified the us following questions to for answers:

1. Does the of a borrower’s residential loan mortgage consti- a tute “consumer transaction” as defined in the Consumer Ohio Sales Act, 1345.01(A)? Practices R.C. * * *

2. that Are entities service “suppliers loans engaged effecting in the business of or soliciting consumer transactions” within of meaning Act, Consumer Ohio Sales Practices R.C. 1345.01(C)? § us, Anderson, action, Before Sondra plaintiff the underlying contends

that mortgage servicing is a “consumer transaction” the mortgage because provides borrowers, servicer number a of services including accepting pay- ments and loan working borrowers to obtain modifications. She asserts that we must questions answer the certified affirmative. But counters that institutions, perform servicers services for financial not for bor- rowers, and therefore transactions commercial in nature and are not covered It CSPA. thus avers that we must questions answer the negative. follow, For the reasons that agree we with HomEq.

Analysis prohibits deceptive The CSPA unfair or acts and unconscionable acts or practices by suppliers before, transactions whether occur during, 1345.03(A); or after the transaction. R.C. and Williams v. Canton, L.L.C., Spitzer 546, 2009-Ohio-3554, Autoworld 122 Ohio St.3d 913 ¶ 410, N.E.2d 10. The CSPA a “consumer defines transaction” be 34 chance, or transfer of item of lease, other sale, assignment, award purposes for service, franchise, intangible, to an individual or an

goods, household, to supply or or solicitation family, personal, are primarily not include transactions transaction” does things. these “Consumer any of institu- [financial 4905.03 and 5725.01 defined in sections persons, between customers, for Code, except their transac- Revised defined] tion to 1321.48 to sections 1321.35 involving pursuant a loan made tions mortgages in connection with residential and transactions Revised Code brokers, or lenders officers, nonbank between customers; involving construction service a home their transactions Code; 4722.01 Revised contract as defined section public accountants their public accountants between clients; attorneys, physicians, or dentists their transactions between and their patients; and transactions between veterinarians clients ancillary treatment services. pertain to medical but patients 1345.01(A). nature, compensate been having designed is remedial in The CSPA v. Ford at common law. Einhorn Motor consumer remedies available incomplete Co., 27, (1990); Martz, see Roberts & St.3d 548 N.E.2d 48 Ohio Age: Fees in Consumer Damages Attorney Consumerism Comes Treble Practices 42 Ohio St.L.J. Transactions —The Ohio Consumer Sales (1981). Thus, in favor of the liberally we must construe statute consumer. 2006-Ohio-5481, Automotive, Inc., Whitaker v. M.T. *4 ¶ 825, 11, 29; at see also R.C. 1.11. quoting N.E.2d Einhorn however, real application “pure” has no in a estate Notably, the CSPA {¶ 10} Clubs, Inc., 191,193, 543 N.E.2d Brown v. 45 Ohio St.3d 783 Liberty transaction. (1989). fact, In real estate transactions are excluded from the statute’s definition 1345.01(A); Sroka, see v. transaction.” Shore W. Constr. Co. “consumer R.C. (1991); Hills, Deacon, 45, 48, v. 61 572 N.E.2d 646 Ltd. 49 Heritage Ohio St.3d (1990). 80, 551 N.E.2d Ohio St.3d 125 servicing

Is of a borrower’s

loan a “consumer transaction”? of a borrower’s residential question servicing The first asks whether {¶ 11} constitutes a “consumer transaction” as defined Ohio mortgage 1345.01(A)? It not. Practices does Consumer Sales servicing mortgage, one essential element R.C. In the a real estate lease, sale, chance, assignment, met: no award is not there is of a service a consumer. other transfer

35 Mortgage servicing is a contractual agreement {¶ between the mortgage 13} servicer and the financial institution that owns both the note and mortgage. Mortgage carried out in the absence of a contract between the borrower and servicer. We recognize the mortgage servicer’s duties may involve direct and indirect interactions with borrowers on behalf of the financial institution. Sometimes the mortgage may servicer even assist in borrower modifying note, the terms of the but the mortgage servicer under- takes the negotiation not for itself but on behalf of the financial institution. These 1345.01(A). interactions do not satisfy the language found R.C. Instead, mortgage servicing, similar to appraisal services, services and title is a “collateral service” associated with a pure real estate transaction. Except for the statute, specified the CSPA does not apply “collateral services that solely associated the sale of real estate and are necessary to effectuate a ‘pure’ real estate Amir, transaction.” U.S. Bank v. 8th Dist. No. ¶ 97438, 2012-Ohio-2772, 2355620, 2012 42-43, WL citing Hurst v. Ent. Title Agency, ¶ 133, App.3d 2004-Ohio-2307, Ohio 689, 809 N.E.2d 34-35 (holding that the escrow services involved were collateral services related to the real estate transaction and that they were subject CSPA), therefore not to the citing Auctioneers, Colburn Baier Realty & 2002-T-0161, 11th Dist. No. 2003- ¶ Ohio-6694, 22931379, 2003 WL 16. See also Hanlin v. Ohio Builders & Remodelers, Inc., (S.D.Ohio 752, 2002) F.Supp.2d (closing services were “part and parcel of the real CSPA). estate transaction” and thus outside the Moreover, transactions between mortgage-service providers and home- owners are not “consumer transactions” within meaning of the CSPA because there is no “transfer of an item of goods, service, a franchise, or an intangible, to an 1345.01(A) (“ individual.” See R.C. ‘Consumer sale, transaction’ means a lease, assignment, chance, award by or other transfer of an goods, item of service, franchise, or an intangible, to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, household, or solicitation to supply any of these A things”). financial institution may contract with a mortgage servicer to service loan, but the mortgage servicer does not transfer a borrower, service to the which is what would be required order to trigger the CSPA. The term “transfer” is CSPA, defined so we give must it its

plain and ordinary meaning. See State v. Anthony, 2002-Ohio- ¶ 772 N.E.2d 11. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term to mean *5 give.” (9th sell or Ed.2009). “[t]o Black’s Law Dictionary 1636 Here, the mortgage servicer neither sells gives nor the borrower the services it provides to the owner of the mortgage and note. A mortgage servicer provides a service to a institution, but providing such a service to a financial institution is neither analogous to transferring a service to a borrower FBS Mtge. See Rossbach v. liability to under the CSPA. impose nor sufficient C9-97-1852, (Apr. 7, *3 and 1998 WL Nos. Minn.App. C3-97-1622 Corp., on 1998) summary to servicer state judgment mortgage order (affirming granting through operated claims because the servicer consumer-protection-act home). plaintiffs the on that owned Accord entity a contract with the 05-238, Assn., D.Minn. WL Group, No. Glass Inc. Indep. Safelite 2005) of violation of state consumer- (dismissing claim (Aug. *7 who third-party administrator was laws where the defendant was protection noting and that the administrator obligation” a contractual insurers “fulfilling than companies” of rather the service for the benefit the insurance “provides consumer). Thus, insureds, provided no service to the under and thus there was statute, of a borrower’s residential plain reading 1345.01(A). as R.C. statute loan is not “consumer transaction” defined a financial institution contracts cannot be read to cover instances which simply entity its loans and mortgages. an service commentary to the Uniform Our conclusion is buttressed Act, which The commentary Sales Practices on the CSPA modeled. Consumer are, be, states, that land transactions and should assumption frequently “On the 7A, I, Part regulated by they altogether.” are excluded specialized legislation, Laws, on National Conference of Commissioners Uniform State Laws Uniform Annotated, Laws, Consumer Business and Financial Uniform Sales Practices 2(1), (Master Ed.2002). at 73 The transactions Official Comment to Section presented acceptance application mortgage payments here include the part of loans in Those transactions do not cease to be management default. originate transaction because that did simply land executes them. Further, that have a consumer-sales-practices other states enacted act specific language referring on the uniform act included to land transactions based See, real when wanted estate to be covered. the statutes 50-624(c) (j) “consumer transaction” to mean e.g., (defining Kan.Stat.Ann. estate). for value of include real property” defining “property” to “disposition That important. Ohio did not. omission is CSPA, In we note of past interpreting decisions have taken Assembly’s language. example, not to certain For

General decision include Hills, rejected attempt bring complaint we a residential tenant’s her Heritage Chapter doing, landlord the ambit of 1345. In so we against her within considered, enacted, Assembly but not a bill that General had recognized within the property have included the lease of real definition “consumer would 82-83, 551 125. 49 Ohio at N.E.2d transaction.” St.3d *6 Here, that recognize Assembly repeatedly we the General has amended Chapter specific 1345 to reach take place mortgage transactions that the industry. But it has not to incorporate mortgage chosen services within the definition of expanded subject provisions. to CSPA’s For General example, Assembly, through the Am.Sub.S.B. No. 185 22} {¶ (“S.B. 185”), 1345.01(A), amended R.C. effective to include expressly types of actively engaged three entities that mortgage market officers, previously subject brokers, were not to the CSPA: loan mortgage But, mortgage notably, nonbank lenders. the has the legislature expanded not application the CSPA to include mortgage servicers. Indeed, passed, after S.B. 185 Assembly 128th General considered 23}

{¶ would bill that have more brought regulation mortgage extensive servicers and them within included the ambit the CSPA. bill was Am.Sub.H.B. No. 3. That enacted, not however. will speculate why We not as to But bill failed. we do take notice of 24}

{¶ the legislative rejected the fact branch considered and amendment that statutory scheme that would have made specifically mortgage servicers liable under CSPA. rejection We conclude that Assembly’s General proposed 25}

{¶ supports amendment our that conclusion servicers are not covered the current If language Chapter Assembly of R.C. 1345.1 the General See, dissatisfied our it interpretation, may e.g., amend Revised Code. ¶ Shay Shay, 2007-Ohio-1384, 113 Ohio (noting St.3d 863 N.E.2d that 3937.31, within six months of a decision interpreting R.C. General 3937.31). Assembly responded by amending R.C. We turn now to the second question. 26}

{¶ “supplier”?

Is a servicer a asks, question presented second entities that “Are service residen- * * * loans, tial ‘suppliers engaged in the effecting business of soliciting consumer meaning transactions’ within the of the Ohio Consumer Sales 1345.01(C)?” § Practices O.R.C. We hold that are not. Anderson’s centers on argument her belief because servicers like

HomEq engage borrowers, transactions with and essentially function as curiae, including organizations legal-aid 1. Amici that are about foreclo- concerned the number of Ohio, place thought-provoking arguments. accept that continue to sures take raise some And we argument regulation role, may sake of legislature’s for the But it be warranted. is the ours, bring mortgage scope. within the CSPA’s servicers “suppli- But the term under the CSPA. agencies, they “suppliers” collection not include servicer. under the CSPA does er” “ seller, lessor, franchisor, person or other ‘Supplier’ assignor, means transactions, whether effecting soliciting in the business of engaged *7 1345.01(C). The directly with the consumer.” R.C. person or not the deals statute, the by give are not the so we “effecting” “soliciting” defined terms and ordinary meanings. and plain terms their about; Law bring is to make Black’s happen.” “Effect” defined as “[t]o

{¶ 30} is act an instance of Dictionary at 592. defined as or “[t]he “Solicitation” at petition.” or Black’s something; request to obtain a requesting seeking Thus, CSPA, under those that cause a consumer “suppliers” 1520. the to a consumer happen transaction to or that seek enter into transaction. Here, soliciting in engage effecting does not the business HomEq {¶ 31} a mortgage transactions. The residential transaction is transaction Mortgage the that occurs between the institution and borrower. not is part simply servicing mortgage servicers are of this transaction. And the Similarly, a to causing consumer transaction servicers do happen. to enter borrowers. not seek into consumer transactions with that an a concluding entity We therefore have little trouble that services {¶ 32} 1345.01(C). mortgage loan is not a as defined in “supplier” residential

Conclusion answer in questions negative. We both certified state-law the

{¶ 33} CSPA, a consumer the Mortgage is not transaction under a a “supplier” that services residential is not under the CSPA. answered.

So Kennedy, JJ., O’Donnell, Lanzinger, concur. J.,

French, judgment only. concurs in O’Neill, JJ., dissent.

Pfeifer

O’Neill, J., dissenting. I the majority’s answering questions dissent from the decision certified I court in negative. questions believe that this should answer (“CSPA”) applies affirmative and hold that the Consumer Practices Act Sales mortgage-loan

to servicers. case, many it, In this like contracted homebuyer Subsequent to estate to provide a lender her with residential real loan. the note executing property, for the institution lending entered an agreement servicer, into with a mortgage HomEq Servicing. HomEq receives payment by for its services keeping portion of the consumer’s residential Thus, mortgage payments. the lender is contractually responsible for paying but HomEq, payment incorporated into the paid interest rate and fees consumer, in effect the cost of transferring HomEq’s services to the consum- er. As described the majority opinion, HomEq’s services are extensive and primarily involve interaction with the HomEq consumer. But is not a party contract, and although the consumer does not want necessarily any have sort of relationship with he or she has no HomEq, choice the matter. Anderson, According to Sondra plaintiff/consumer underlying case, complaint her alleges failed to apply mortgage payments her the manner required by her note and mortgage, provide failed to accurate information in response repeated her inquiries about her residential mortgage loan, and accepted payments without acknowledging them and without forward- *8 ing Thus, them to mortgage-loan her lender. subject she was HomEq’s neglect malfeasance, and yet she had no means of recourse because she and/or did not a have contractual relationship HomEq. Although some federal district courts have interpreted Ohio’s CSPA in cases,

similar the federal court reviewing the present case determined that there was no controlling precedent on the definitions of “consumer transaction” and “supplier” in the context of mortgage-loan servicers. I agree with Anderson’s that assertion mortgage-loan-servicing companies transfer their services to the consumers, because the provided services not do constitute part original real estate transaction 1345.01(A) and because the plain language of R.C. does not provide any exceptions for mortgage servicers. provides as follows: sale, lease,

“Consumer transaction” means a assignment, award chance, or other transfer of an goods, service, franchise, item of a a or an intangible, to an individual for purposes that primarily personal, household, family, or or solicitation to supply any of these things. “Con- sumer transaction” does not include transactions persons, between defined in sections Code, 4905.03 and 5725.01 of customers, the Revised and their except for transactions a loan involving pursuant made to sections 1321.35 1321.48 the Revised Code and transactions in connection with residential mortgages officers, brokers, between loan mortgage or non- mortgage customers; bank lenders their transactions a involving home construction service contract as defined in section 4722.01 of the Code; Revised transactions public between certified public accountants or clients; attorneys, physicians, their transactions between accountants and veteri- transactions between patients; their or or dentists and clients medical treatment but pertain patients narians and their ancillary services. a language, the statute establishes foregoing To summarize provision goods, that involve the transaction includes transactions

services, family, for or household intangibles personal, to individual consumers include Those provides exceptions. exceptions then purposes. statute institution, intangi- a a customer and a financial dealer transactions between to those bles, exception The statute then company. provides or an insurance entity, exempted financial institution or other even if the exceptions: if a particular a consumer transaction it is transaction nonetheless constitutes $500, a home involving under or if it is a transaction of short-term loan kind mortgage with a contract or transaction connection construction officer, mortgage or her loan an interaction between a customer his involving broker, Finally, exempts or nonbank the statute lender. professionals certain and their clients but those transactions patients, between controversy. pertinent present are not to the law, must in favor of liberally The CSPA is a remedial so it be construed Co., 27, 29, v. Ford Motor 548 N.E.2d

the consumer. Einhorn institution, (1990), intangi citing HomEq R.C. 1.11. is not dealer officer, bles, it fit within company, or an insurance nor does the definitions of broker, not fit within or nonbank lender. Thus does are not particular entities. Because servicers exceptions any statute, included, and their therefore excluded must be services *9 transactions that are covered the CSPA. constitute consumer is that of majority’s primary holding HomEq’s collection transactions, be- and other services cannot be considered consumer payments only relationship lending the contractual is with the institutions cause consumers’ the that services facilitate is the underlying HomEq’s and because transaction Thus, entirely the focuses on the majority real estate transaction. original However, the than on the transactions. parties transactions rather the underlying that of of R.C. demonstrates the nature language identity does not matter as much as commercial transaction that the transaction Specifically, provides involved transaction. statute qualifies as a consumer between a consumer and “nonbank lender” transaction, will involve real estate though relationship obviously pure even transaction.

41 Further, in many applicability federal decisions address the servicers, Ohio’s to mortgage-loan may CSPA the courts have held that the CSPA L.P., 2:05-CV-0098, v. apply. Dowling Litton Loan S.D.Ohio Servicing, No. 3498292, (Dec. 1, 2006); 2006 at Mtge. WL *13-14 Kline v. Electronic Registra (Mar. Inc., 3:08cv408, 1233642, 29, tion Sys., 2011); S.D.Ohio No. 2011 at *4-5 WL L.P., l:10-CV-00783, Jent v. Servicing, BAC Home Loans No. S.D.Ohio 2011 WL 2971846, 21, Bank, (July 2011); at *3 Munger v. Deutsche N.D.Ohio No. 1:11- CV-00585, 2930907, 2011); Inc., 18, 2011 WL at *9 (July CitiMortgage, Sims v. (Jan. 2013). 00096, 310236, 25, 1:12 N.D.Ohio No. CV 2013 at *5 WL These decisions on the of liberal rely principle application favor of the analogize mortgage servicers consumer-debt collectors. “Ohio courts have long held that entities engaging collection consumer debts are suppli *4, Research, ers.” Kline at v. citing Celebrezze United Ohio App.3d 19 (9th Dist.1984). 482 N.E.2d 1260 way of By comparison, holdings evolution court on the issue

whether debt collectors fall purview within the of the CSPA confirms that the appropriate focus this is on analysis identity of the commercial entity involved in the transaction instead of original the nature of the underlying Early transaction. federal subject decisions on the had determined that debt collecting did not involve consumer transactions under the CSPA if Ohio original was a institution, lender financial even when the debt collection took place after the debt had been transferred to debt collector. See Gionis v. Javitch, Rathbone, (S.D.Ohio 2005). Block & Later, F.Supp.2d rejected federal courts that view and that an assignee determined of a debt who is not a financial institution no has entitlement to the financial-institution exemp- tion to the reasoning CSPA. The A compelling. debt collector is not a institution, much as a mortgage servicing company is not as well. See Javitch, Rathbone, (S.D.Ohio Lee L.L.P., 2007). Block & 522 F.Supp.2d The holding that a nonexempted entity cannot hide exempted behind the status of the original entity is supported the fact that bank “[a] customer has other adequate if remedies a bank engage deceptive should or unfair conduct in making a loan or issuing a card. credit But if the financial past institution sells a due or defaulted debt at a deep discount to party, unrelated whose only collection, business is debt policy sound for the financial exemption institution evaporates.” Id. fact, In exceptions the other to the justified by CSPA also the fact

that the transactions involved are heavily regulated by statutory other schemes. See, Hills, Deacon, e.g., Heritage 80, 83, Ltd. v. 551 N.E.2d 125 *10 (1990) (landlord-tenant agreements lease already regulated by are well 5321); 7A, I, Chapter Part National Conference of on Commissioners Uniform Annotated, Laws, Laws, State Laws Business and Financial Uniform Uniform (Master 2(1), at 73 to Section Comment Practices Official Sales Consumer “[o]n the CSPA from Ed.2002) (the excluded completely estate is sale of real be, are, regulated and should frequently land transactions assumption regulat- servicing is not so mortgage-loan The fact legislation”). specialized applies. find that the CSPA reason to all the more ed is they when consumers protecting history of foregoing Given the collectors, wholly appropriate it is third-party debt the hands of into forced into the are forced when borrowers residential-mortgage-loan protect also to the first certified respond I therefore would servicers. mortgage-loan hands a borrower’s servicing of that the by holding question 1345.01(A). in R.C. as defined transaction” a “consumer constitutes servicer a mortgage-loan whether asks question The second 1345.01(C). transaction, as defined R.C. in a consumer a “supplier” constitutes transactions. entity that effects as an supplier defines a That statute i.e., yes, is question first certified answer to the that the correct I believe Because transac- are consumer servicer by mortgage-loan performed the transactions affirmative, i.e., mortgage- in the question tions, answer second I would also transaction. in a consumer supplier is a loan servicer broad, excep- and its transaction” term “consumer scope of the fit within clearly do services HomEq’s and limited. very specific tions are to curb public it to the 1345.01. We owe articulated R.C. exceptions any of consumers, only and when it is the entities unregulated activities of of the as a result in dire financial straits consumers, homeless and who are left our do otherwise shirks activities. To negligent unscrupulous entities’ and/or in favor construe the CSPA liberally 1.11 to to R.C. duty pursuant dissent. I must therefore consumer. Michael L.P.A., Murray, and Co., Murray, T. Leslie O. John

Murray Murray & Stewart, respondent. J. Kathleen M. Arthur, L.L.P., D. Curphey, James

Porter, Morris & Wright, L.L.P., Sandler, Benjamin and Buckley Trafford, Hughes; L. Bradfield Klubes, for petitioner. B. Crawford; L.L.C., Law Associates, Ian Wells

Crawford, and G. Lowry & answered questions be Wells, that the certified Office, Amy urging L. Association for Justice. amicus curiae Ohio the affirmative for General, Schimmer, General, Alexandra T. Solicitor DeWine, Attorney Michael Loeser, Solicitor, Assistant Jeffrey R. Hendershot, Deputy Chief Michael J. affirma- answered General, questions that the certified be urging Attorney Attorney General. amicus curiae the Ohio tive for *11 Cook, Dreshman, Greenwald,

Linda E. Tammy Chablani, Lauren L. L. Aneel Neuhauser, D. and Andrew urging that questions be answered affirmative amici curiae Ohio Legal Programs, Services on Coalition Home- Ohio, Housing Center, lessness and Fair Toledo Miami Housing Valley Fair Center, Housing National Consumer Law Center. Appellee. Ohio, Appellant, Athon,

The State Athon, State v. [Cite as Ohio 2013-Ohio-1956.] St.3d (No. 2013.) February 2012-0628—Submitted 2013—Decided May