Title: State v. Larson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Larson, 103 Ohio St.3d 165, 2004-Ohio-4757.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. LARSON, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State v. Larson, 103 Ohio St.3d 165, 2004-Ohio-4757.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on authority of State v. Brooks. 
(No. 2004-0556 — Submitted July 20, 2004 — Decided September 22, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Clermont County, No. CA2003-07-059, 
2004-Ohio-700. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority 
of State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, ___ N.E.2d ___. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, 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, ___ N.E.2d ___. 
__________________ 
 
Donald W. White, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and David H. 
Hoffmann, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
R. Daniel Hannon, Clermont County Public Defender, and Robert F. 
Benintendi, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee. 
________________