The following dispositions of currently pending appeals are hereby entered based on our decision in State v. Gustafson (1996),
I
The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are affirmed:
95-1220. State v. Roberts. Ross County, No. 94CA2020,
95-1641. State v. Melody. Wyandot County, No. 16-95-3.
95-1802. State v. Schaffner. Auglaize County, No. 2-95-23.
95-1806 and 95-1807. State v. Viera. Auglaize County, No. 2-95-25.
95-1908. State v. Waits. Butler County, No. CA95-02-027,
95-1909. State v. Sims. Butler County, Nos. CA94-12-215, CA94-12-217, CA95-02-025, CA95-02-033 and CA95-04-064,
95-2040. State v. Rischar. Warren County, No. CA94-08-072,
95-2304. State v. Malone. Marion County, No. 9-95-17,
95-2430 and 95-2501. State v. Johnston. Franklin County, No. 95APC06-695.
95-2468. State v. Weber. Franklin County, Nos. 95APC05-534, 95APC05-545, 95APC05-545 and 95APC06-717.
95-2506. State v. Francis. Warren County, Nos. CA95-04-039, CA95-04-040 and CA95-05-050.
95-2573. State v. Hollen. Franklin County, No. 95APC06-699.
95-2649. Columbus v. Fabrizio. Franklin County, No. 95APC06-705.
95-2657. Bucyrus v. Fritz. Crawford County, No. 3-95-20. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to the sole proposition of law previously allowed.
96- 30. State v. Eves. Warren County, No. CA95-02-010,
96-66. Columbus v. Brown. Franklin County, No. 95APC08-993.
96-67. State v. Gordon. Franklin County, No. 95APC08-1098.
96-69. Columbus v. Lambros. Franklin County, No. 95APC06-704.
96-99. State v. Howell. Warren County, No. CA95-06-057,
96-116. State v. Reyna. Franklin County, No. 95APC06-706.
96-147.. Dublin v. Callahan. Franklin County, No. 95APC08-963.
96-172. Columbus v. Squeo. Franklin County, No. 95APC08-990.
96-175 and 96-216. Columbus v. Perry. Franklin County, No. 95APC08-991.
96-190. Middletown v. Combs. Butler County, No. CA95-08-136,
96-191. Middletown v. Smallwood. Butler County, No. CA95-08-127,
96-200. State v. Strode. Franklin County, No. 95APC07-852.
96-207. State v. Nowling. Franklin County, No. 95APC07-867.
96-448. State v. Edmunds. Summit County, No. 17249,
96-471. State v. Toriello. Summit County, Nos. 17415 and 17507,
96-645. State v. Mangini. Medina County, No. 2499-M,
96-709. State v. Phelps. Union County, No. 14-95-27. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to Propositions of Law Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, which were previously allowed. Proposition of Law No. 5 is deemed improvidently allowed.
96-758. State v. Barr. Summit County, No. 17342,
96-799. State v. Brandon. Hocking County, No. 95-CA-14.
96-866. State v. Thompson. Hardin County, No. 6-95-20.
96-996. State v. Dennis. Medina County, No. 2512-M,
The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are affirmed and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for final disposition in conformance with State v. Gustafson, supra:
95-2210. State v. Sanders. Miami County, Nos. 95-CA-11 and 95-CA-12,
95- 2391. State v. Geren. Auglaize County, No. 2-95-22,
96- 219. Twinsburg v. Buckley. Summit County, No. 17226,
96-270. State v. Freed. Hancock County, No. 5-95-38.
96-271. Findlay v. Koziel. Hancock County, No. 5-95-35.
96-614. State v. Martin. Hardin County, No. 6-95-11.
96-631. Akron v. Langley. Summit County, No. 17479,
Ill
The judgment of the court of appeals in the following case is reversed and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for final disposition in conformance with State v. Gustafson, supra, and State v. Hochhausler (1996),
95-1906. State v. Knisely. Huron County, No. H-94-044,
IV
In the following cases the discretionary appeals are allowed, the judgments are reversed, and the causes are remanded to the court of appeals for disposition in conformance with State v. Gustafson, supra:
96-512. State v. Conroy. Geauga County, No. 95-G-1925,
96-513. State v. Hlavin. Geauga County, No. 95-G-1912,
96-539. State v. Gronowski. Geauga County, No. 95-G-1926,
V
In the following case the court finds that a conflict exists on the certified question and affirms the judgment of the court of appeals:
96-933. State v. Baker. Warren County, No. CA95-05-047,
VI
The following cases are dismissed, sua sponte, as having no substantial constitutional question, and the discretionary appeals, if applicable, are not allowed:
95- 1957. State v. Knisely. Huron County, No. H-94-044,
96- 517. State v. Sink. Preble County, No. CA95-10-023,
96-582. State v. Lisk. Ross County, No. 95CA2136,
96-583. State v. Francis. Ross County, No. 95CA2133,
96-586. State v. Beba. Medina County, No. 2497-M,
96-606. Akron v. Long. Summit County, No. 17517,
96-607. Akron v. Hatcher. Summit County, No. 17516,
96-608. Fairlawn v. Costas. Summit County, No. 17518,
96-626. State v. Whittis. Montgomery County, No. 15270,
96-633. State v. Spangler. Madison County, No. CA95-10-035,
96-725. Akron v. Thomas. Summit County, No. 17451,
96-840. State v. Kane. Medina County, No. 2494-M,
96-891. State v. Burke. Wayne County, No. 95CA0082,
96-906. State v. Walter. Summit County, No. 17546,
96-1025. State v. Travis. Medina County, No. 2509-M,
96-1027. State v. George. Medina County, No. 2513-M,
96-1096. Akron v. Smith. Summit County, No. 17568,
96-1104. State v. Cole. Summit County, No. 17580,
96-1146. State v. Young. Ross County, No. 95CA2132,
96-1289. State v. Jackson. Madison County, No. CA95-12-039,
96-1442. State v. Campean. Medina County, No. 2522-M,
96-1497. State v. Mitton. Medina County, No. 2530-M,
96-1529. State v. Darst. Athens County, No. 95 CA 1671,
96-1569. State v. Beasley. Preble County, No. CA96-02-001,
96-1590. State v. Skinner. Athens County, No. 96 CA 1715,
96-1616. Akron v. Muncy. Summit County, No. 17666,
96-1672. State v. Fisher. Medina County, No. 2502-M,
96-1678. State v. Radcliffe. Ross County, No. 95CA2150,
96-1701. Tallmadge v. Rohm. Summit County, No. 17581,
96-1734. State v. Hooper. Union County, No. 14-96-12.
96-1749. State v. Mingle. Medina County, No. 2487-M,
