[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. __________________