State v. Lance
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- State v. Gregory, Unpublished Decision (3-5-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 84 Ohio St.3d 17.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LANCE, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Lance, 1998-Ohio-304.]
Criminal procedure—Classification as sexual predator—Court of appeals’ judgment on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II affirmed on authority of State v. Cook—Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed on Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V. (Nos. 98-603 and 98-605—Submitted October 13, 1998—Decided November 25, 1998.)
CERTIFIED by and APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-970301. __________________
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sherry Green, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Schuh & Goldberg and Raul E. Tellez, for appellant. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II is affirmed on the authority of State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570. {¶ 2} Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V are dismissed as having been improvidently allowed.
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in part and dissent in part. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
COOK, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. {¶ 3} I dissent from the dismissal of Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V.
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. __________________
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.