Title: State v. Fortman

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. FORTMAN, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Fortman (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Criminal procedure — Classification as sexual predator — Court of appeals’ 
judgment on Proposition of Law No. I affirmed on authority of State v. Cook 
— APPEAL dismissed as improvidently allowed on Proposition of Law No. II. 
(No. 98-899 — Submitted October 13, 1998 — Decided November 25, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 16565. 
__________________ 
 
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Cheryl A. Ross, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Rudd, Silverberg, Zaharieff & Orlins Co., L.P.A., and Anthony J. Zaharieff, 
for appellant. 
__________________ 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals on Proposition of Law No. I is 
affirmed on the authority of State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 
570. 
 
The appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently allowed on 
Proposition of Law No. II. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.