Case ID: ohio-st-3d_103/html/0133-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lundberg Stratton,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Housley, Appellant.
    [Cite as State v. Housley, 103 Ohio St.3d 133, 2004-Ohio-4780.]
    (Nos. 2003-1084 and 2003-1486
    Submitted July 20, 2004
    Decided September 22, 2004.)
    Donald W. White, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and David Henry Hoffmann, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
   {¶ 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.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton,

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.

O’Donnell, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

R. Daniel Hannon, Clermont County Public Defender, and Robert F. Benintendi, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.