Opinion

State v. Brown, 90798 (1-15-2009)

  • 2009 Ohio 127
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Jan 15, 2009
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.
Cited by
3 cases

Reversed in part, on other grounds by In re Sexual-Offender Reclassification Cases, 126 Ohio St. 3d 322 (2010)

The opinion

{¶ 13} I respectfully dissent. I would review Brown's constitutional challenge to S.B. 10. I disagree with the majority's conclusion that "notice of a future obligation is not the equivalent of actual imposition of that obligation." I would review the constitutional challenge of this Tier II label Brown has been given, much like we review other future events of which offenders are notified at sentencing, such as postrelease control and the specific prison term which could be imposed if community control sanctions are violated. *Page 1

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.