State v. Larson
814 N.E.2d 864
Ohio
2004
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, 814 N.E.2d 837.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.



Concurrence in Part

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

{¶ 2} I concur with respect to the finding that pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(5), the trial court is required to deliver the statutorily detailed notifications at the sentencing hearing. However, 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.