Court Opinion

ID: 9801548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:50:41.725191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:35.192564
License: Public Domain

Lanzinger, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 18} This should come as no surprise to anyone, but I dissent. Yet again, the majority ignores its own limitation that State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332, ¶ 31, applies to “a discrete vein of cases: those in which a court does not properly impose a statutorily mandated period of postrelease control.” Now the majority holds that the failure to impose the fine required by R.C. 2925.11(E) and 2929.18(B)(1) when an affidavit of indigency was not filed with the court before the court journalized its sentencing entry rendered that part of the sentence void. When will this end? For the reasons recently expressed in my separate opinion in State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103, 2012-Ohio-5144, 980 N.E.2d 960, I dissent.