Case ID: ohio-st-3d_103/html/0132-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lundberg Stratton, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Chandler, Appellee. The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Tate, Appellee.
    [Cite as State v. Chandler, 103 Ohio St.3d 132, 2004-Ohio-4779.]
    (Nos. 2003-0765 and 2003-0766
    Submitted July 20, 2004
    Decided September 22, 2004.)
   {¶ 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.

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.