Title: State v. Lance

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LANCE, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Lance (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 17.] 
Criminal procedure — Classification as sexual predator — Court of appeals’ 
judgment on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II affirmed on authority of 
State v. Cook — Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed on Propositions 
of Law Nos. III, IV, and V. 
(Nos. 98-603 and 98-605 — Submitted October 13, 1998 — Decided November 
25, 1998.) 
CERTIFIED by and APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-
970301. 
__________________ 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sherry 
Green, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Schuh & Goldberg and Raul E. Tellez, for appellant. 
__________________ 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II is 
affirmed on the authority of State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 
570. 
 
Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V are dismissed as having been 
improvidently allowed. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in part and dissent in part. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.  I dissent from the 
dismissal of Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V. 
 
2
 
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.