Court Opinion

ID: 9802356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 09:05:02.183385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:13.084299
License: Public Domain

Carr, Judge,
concurring in judgment only.
{¶ 15} I concur in the majority’s judgment but I am compelled to write separately to emphasize our concerns regarding the imposition of a condition of probation that may infringe on a married couple’s fundamental right to companionship with one another. Under the specific facts of this case, however, I agree that this court has no choice but to affirm in part, given the lack of evidence in the record that Andrasak and Hanning are married.
{¶ 16} While Andrasak may have other remedies, such as postconviction relief, she has no grounds for relief on direct appeal in the absence of any evidence that Hanning is her husband.