State v. Chandler

Ohio Supreme Court
State v. Chandler, 103 Ohio St. 3d 132 (Ohio 2004)
814 N.E.2d 835
Connor, Donnell, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

State v. Chandler

Opinion of the Court

{¶ 1} The judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed on the authority of State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, 814 N.E.2d 837.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O’Connor, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. O’Donnell, J., dissents.

Concurring in Part

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

{¶ 2} I concur with respect to the finding that pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(5), the trial court is required to deliver the statutorily detailed notifications at the sentencing hearing. However, I continue to disagree with the majority’s holding that R.C. 2929.15(B) and 2929.19(B)(5) require the trial court to notify the offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for a violation of the conditions of the sanction as a prerequisite to imposing a prison term on the offender for a later violation. Therefore, I continue to dissent from the application of that holding consistent with my dissenting opinion in State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, 814 N.E.2d 837.

Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Rebecca L. Collins, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Chris McEvilley and Bryan R. Perkins, for appellees.

Reference

Full Case Name
The State of Ohio v. Chandler, Appellee The State of Ohio v. Tate
Status
Published