Court Opinion

ID: 9816514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 03:14:31.72347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:03.637866
License: Public Domain

*376Brown, Judge,
concurring.
{¶ 31} While I concur with the majority decision, I do not agree that the Supreme Court of Ohio made clear in State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-3749, 893 N.E.2d 169 (“Colon II”) that the decision only applied to R.C. 2911.02(A)(2). Upon reconsideration of State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624, 885 N.E.2d 917 (“Colon I”), the Supreme Court stated that “the syllabus in Colon I is confined to the facts in that case.” Colon II at ¶ 8. Justice O’Donnell, in his dissent in Colon II, raised the issue of treating defendants with the same defective indictment issue as Colon I in the same manner. See id. at ¶ 12. While the facts surrounding the offenses in this case are different from the facts surrounding the offenses in Colon I, the same defect exists here as well as the same four errors found to follow the defective indictment in Colon I.