State v. Housley

Sep 22, 2004

Nos. 2003-1084 and 2003-1486

Versions:103 Ohio St. 3d 133

814 N.E.2d 836

Lead Opinion

{¶ 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, 814 N.E.2d 837, and the causes remanded to the trial court.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O’Connor, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

Dissenting Opinion

Lundberg Stratton,

J., dissenting.

{¶ 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, 814 N.E.2d 837.

O’Donnell, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. R. Daniel Hannon, Clermont County Public Defender, and Robert F. Benintendi, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.