State v. Newman, Nos. 2002-1722 and 2002-1723

Nos. 2002-1722 and 2002-1723 | Ohio | Sep 24, 2003

Lead Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing on the authority of State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St. 3d 463" date_filed="2003-08-27" court="Ohio" case_name="State v. Comer">99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473" date_filed="2003-08-27" court="Ohio" case_name="State v. Comer">793 N.E.2d 473.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. O’Connor, J., concurs separately. Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents. O’Donnell, J., not participating.

---

Concurrence Opinion

O’Connor, J.,

concurring.

{¶ 2} Although I dissented in State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St. 3d 463" date_filed="2003-08-27" court="Ohio" case_name="State v. Comer">99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473" date_filed="2003-08-27" court="Ohio" case_name="State v. Comer">793 N.E.2d 473, I recognize that Comer is now the law. As such, the sentencing procedure for ordering a consecutive sentence should be the same as for ordering a maximum sentence. Thus, I concur here.

---

Dissenting Opinion

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 3} For the reasons expressed in Judge Grady’s dissent in State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St. 3d 463" date_filed="2003-08-27" court="Ohio" case_name="State v. Comer">99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473,I respectfully dissent.