[Cite as In re Parole Determination Involving Indeterminate Sentencing Cases, 98 Ohio St.3d 164, 2002-Ohio-7085.]

IN RE PAROLE DETERMINATION INVOLVING INDETERMINATE SENTENCING CASES. [Cite as In re Parole Determination Cases, 98 Ohio St.3d 164, 2002-Ohio- 7085.] Criminal procedure — Parole — In any parole determination involving indeterminate sentencing, the Ohio Parole Authority must assign an inmate the offense category of offenses of conviction — Disposition of cases on authority of Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority. (Submitted December 4, 2002 — Decided December 26, 2002.) __________________

{¶1} The following dispositions of currently pending appeals are entered based on our decision in Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 97 Ohio St.3d 456, 2002-Ohio-6719, 780 N.E.2d 548. I {¶2} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are reversed, and the causes are remanded to the respective trial courts for further proceedings consistent with Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., supra: {¶3} 2001-1659. Lower v. Ghee (Aug. 2, 2001), Franklin App. No. 00AP-1349. {¶4} 2001-1774. Gearheart v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Aug. 23, 2001), Fairfield App. No. 01CA28, 2001 WL 1011455. {¶5} 2002-1042. Coventry v. Ghee, Licking App. No. 01CA89, 2002- Ohio-2523, 2002 WL 925209. II SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶6} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are affirmed on the authority of Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., supra: {¶7} 2002-0442. Randolph v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Miami App. No. 2001-CA-36, 2002-Ohio-547, 2002 WL 191640. {¶8} 2002-0883. Tucker v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Apr. 11, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 80134, 2002 WL 568404.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

2