State v. Housley
Ohio Supreme Court
State v. Housley, 103 Ohio St. 3d 133 (Ohio 2004)
814 N.E.2d 836
Connor, Donnell, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
State v. Housley
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, 814 N.E.2d 837, and the causes remanded to the trial court.
Dissenting Opinion
J., dissenting.
{¶ 2} 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.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The State of Ohio v. Housley
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published