Case Title: In re Administrative License Suspension Cases

Citation: 1996-Ohio-78

Docket Number: 19951220

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-10-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
1
IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION CASES. 
 
[Cite as In re Administrative License Suspension Cases (1996),  
 
 ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Motor vehicles -- Driving while intoxicated -- License suspended 
administratively, pursuant to R.C. 4511.191, subsequent to arrest 
for violation of R.C. 4511.19 -- Disposition of causes on authority 
of Gustafson and Williams. 
 
(Submitted September 10, 1996 -- Decided October 9, 1996.) 
 
The following dispositions of currently pending appeals are hereby 
entered based on our decision in State v. Gustafson (1996), 76 Ohio St. 
3d 425, ___ N.E.2d ___, or, where indicated, based on our decision in 
State v. Williams (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 290, ___ N.E.2d ___. 
I 
 
2
 
The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are 
affirmed:  
95-1220. 
State v. Roberts.  Ross County, No. 94CA2020 (per  
 
 
Williams, supra). 
95-1641. 
State v. Melody.  Wyandot County, No. 16-95-3. 
95-1802. 
State v. Schaffner.  Auglaize County, No. 2-95-23. 
95-1806 and 95-1807. State  v. Viera.  Auglaize County, No. 2-95-25. 
95-1908. 
State v. Waits.  Butler County, No. CA95-02-027. 
95-1909. 
State v. Sims.  Butler County, Nos. CA94-12-215, CA94-12- 
 
 
217, CA95-02-025, CA95-02-033 and CA95-04-064. 
95-2040. 
State v. Rischar.  Warren County, No. CA94-08-072.  The  
judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to the sole 
proposition of law previously allowed.  
95-2304. 
State v. Malone.  Marion County, No. 9-95-17. 
 
3
95-2430 and 95-2501. State v. Johnston.  Franklin County, No.  
 
 
 
 
95APC06-695. 
 
4
95-2468. 
State v. Weber.   Franklin County, Nos. 95APC05-534,  
 
 
95APC05-545, 95APC05-545 and 95APC06-717. 
95-2506. 
State v. Francis.  Warren County, Nos. CA95-04-039, CA95- 
 
 
04-040 and CA95-05-050. 
95-2573. 
State v. Hollen.  Franklin County, No. 95APC06-699. 
95-2649. 
Columbus v. Fabrizio.  Franklin County, No. 95APC06-705.  
95-2657. 
Bucyrus v. Fritz.  Crawford County, No. 3-95-20.  The 
judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to the sole 
proposition of law previously allowed.   
95-2677. 
Columbus v. Grove.  Franklin County, No. 95APC06-679  
(per Gustafson and Bolivar v. Dick [1996],.76 Ohio St.3d 
216, ___ N.E.2d ___).  
96-30. 
State v. Eves.  Warren County, No. CA95-02-010. 
96-66. 
Columbus v. Brown.  Franklin County, No. 95APC08-993. 
 
5
96-67. 
State v. Gordon.  Franklin County, No. 95APC08-1098. 
96-69 
Columbus v. Lambros.  Franklin County, No. 95APC06-704.  
96-99. 
State v. Howell.  Warren County, No. CA95-06-057. 
96-116. 
State v. Reyna.  Franklin County, No. 95APC06-706.  
96-147. 
Dublin v. Callahan.  Franklin County, No. 95APC08-963. 
96-172. 
Columbus v. Squeo.  Franklin County, No. 95APC08-990. 
96-175 and 96-216. 
Columbus v. Perry.  Franklin County, No.  
 
 
 
 
95APC08-991. 
96-190. 
Middletown v. Combs.  Butler County, No. CA95-08-136. 
96-191. 
Middletown v. Smallwood.  Butler County, No. CA95-08-127.
 
6
96-200. 
State v. Strode.  Franklin County, No. 95APC07-852. 
96-207. 
State v. Nowling.  Franklin County, No. 95APC07-867. 
96-448. 
State v. Edmunds.  Summit County, No. 17249. 
96-471. 
State v. Toriello.  Summit County, Nos. 17415 and 17507.  
96-645. 
State v. Mangini.  Medina County, No. 2499-M (per  
 
 
Gustafson and Williams). 
96-709. 
State v. Phelps. Union County, No. 14-95-27.  The judgment 
of the court of appeals is affirmed as to Propositions of Law 
Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, which were previously allowed.  
Proposition of Law No. 5 is deemed improvidently allowed. 
96-758. 
State v. Barr.  Summit County, No. 17342. 
96-799. 
State v. Brandon.  Hocking County, No. 95-CA-14. 
96-866. 
State v. Thompson.  Hardin County, No. 6-95-20. 
96-996. 
State v. Dennis.  Medina County, No. 2512-M. 
 
7
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER AND 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in judgment only. 
II 
 
The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are 
affirmed and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for final 
disposition in conformance with State v. Gustafson, supra:  
95-2210. 
State v. Sanders.  Miami County, Nos. 95-CA-11 and  
 
 
95-CA-12. 
95-2391. 
State v. Geren.  Auglaize County, No. 2-95-22. 
96-219. 
Twinsburg v. Buckley.  Summit County, No. 17226. 
96-270. 
State v. Freed.  Hancock County, No. 5-95-38. 
96-271. 
Findlay v. Koziel.  Hancock County, No. 5-95-35.96-614.
 
State v. Martin.  Hardin County, No. 6-95-11. 
 
8
96-631. 
Akron v. Langley.  Summit County, No. 17479.  
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and STRATTON, 
JJ., CONCUR. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in part and dissents in part because she would not 
remand to the trial court. 
III 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals in the following case is 
reversed and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for final 
disposition in conformance with State v. Gustafson, supra, and State v. 
Hochhausler (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 455, _____ N.E.2d _____: 
95-1906. 
State v. Knisely.  Huron County, No. H-94-044.  
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in judgment only. 
 
9
IV 
 
In the following cases the discretionary appeals are allowed, the 
judgments are reversed, and the causes are remanded to the court of 
appeals for disposition in conformance with State v. Gustafson, supra:  
96-512. 
State v. Conroy.  Geauga County, No. 95-G-1925.  
96-513. 
State v. Hlavin.  Geauga County, No. 95-G-1912. 
96-539. 
State v. Gronowski.   Geauga County, No. 95-G-1926. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in judgment only. 
V 
 
In the following case the court finds that a conflict exists on the 
certified question and affirms the judgment of the court of appeals: 
96-933. 
State v. Baker.  Warren County, No. CA95-05-047. 
 
10
 
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in judgment only. 
VI 
 
The following cases are dismissed, sua sponte, as having no 
substantial constitutional question, and the discretionary appeals, if 
applicable, are not allowed: 
95-1957. 
State v. Knisely.  Huron County, No. H-94-044. 
 
11
96-517. 
State v.  Sink.   Preble County, No. CA95-10-023. 
96-582. 
State v. Lisk.  Ross County, No. 95CA2136. 
96-583. 
State v. Francis.  Ross County, No. 95CA2133. 
96-586. 
State v. Beba.  Medina County, No. 2497-M. 
96-606. 
Akron v. Long.  Summit County, No. 17517. 
96-607. 
Akron v. Hatcher.  Summit County, No. 17516. 
96-608.  
Fairlawn v. Costas.  Summit County, No. 17518. 
96-626. 
State v. Whittis.  Montgomery County, No. 15270 (per State  
 
 
v. Williams, supra). 
96-633. 
State v. Spangler.  Madison County, No. CA95-10-035. 
96-725. 
Akron v. Thomas.  Summit County, No. 17451. 
96-840. 
State v. Kane.  Medina County, No. 2494-M. 
96-891. 
State v. Burke.  Wayne County, No. 95CA0082.  
96-906. 
State v. Walter.  Summit County, No. 17546. 
 
12
96-1025. 
State v. Travis.  Medina County, No. 2509-M. 
96-1027. 
State v. George.  Medina County, No. 2513-M. 
96-1096. 
Akron v. Smith.  Summit County, No. 17568. 
96-1104. 
State v. Cole.  Summit County, No. 17580.  
96-1146. 
State v. Young.  Ross County, No. 95CA2132. 
 
13
96-1259. 
State v. Parsons.  Clermont County, No. CA95-12-090.  
96-1289. 
State v. Jackson.  Madison County, No. CA95-12-039. 
96-1442. 
State v. Campean.  Medina County, No. 2522-M. 
96-1497. 
State v. Mitton.  Medina County, No. 2530-M.  
96-1529. 
State v. Darst.  Athens County, No. 95 CA 1671 (per  
 
 
Gustafson and Williams). 
96-1569. 
State v. Beasley.  Preble County, No. CA96-02-001. 
96-1590. 
State v. Skinner.  Athens County, No. 96 CA 1715 (per  
 
 
Gustafson and Williams). 
96-1616. 
Akron v. Muncy.  Summit County, No. 17666. 
96-1672. 
State v. Fisher.  Medina County, No. 2502-M. 
96-1678. 
State v. Radcliffe.  Ross County, No. 95CA2150. 
96-1701. 
Tallmadge v. Rohm.  Summit County, No. 17581. 
96-1734. 
State v. Hooper.  Union County, No. 14-96-12. 
 
14
96-1749. 
State v. Mingle.  Medina County, No. 2487-M. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur.