[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 84 Ohio St.3d 14.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. FORTMAN, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Fortman, 1998-Ohio-577.] Criminal procedure—Classification as sexual predator—Court of appeals’ judgment on Proposition of Law No. I affirmed on authority of State v. Cook—APPEAL dismissed as improvidently allowed on Proposition of Law No. II. (No. 98-899—Submitted October 13, 1998—Decided November 25, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 16565. __________________ Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Cheryl A. Ross, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Rudd, Silverberg, Zaharieff & Orlins Co., L.P.A., and Anthony J. Zaharieff, for appellant. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals on Proposition of Law No. I is affirmed on the authority of State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570. {¶ 2} The appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently allowed on Proposition of Law No. II. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________