Case Name: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Smith, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2003-06-11
Citations: 99 Ohio St. 3d 140
Docket Number: Nos. 2002-1093 and 2002-1220
Parties: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Smith, Appellant.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 99
Pages: 140–141

Head Matter:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Smith, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Smith, 99 Ohio St.3d 140, 2003-Ohio-2769.]
(Nos. 2002-1093 and 2002-1220
Submitted May 14, 2003
Decided June 11, 2003.)

Opinion:
{¶ 1} Propositions of Law Nos. II through VI are dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.
{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on Proposition of Law No. I on the authority of State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d 127, 2003-Ohio-2761, 789 N.E.2d 222.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Renee L. Snow, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton and O'Con-nor, JJ., concur.
Cook, J., not participating.