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

> Ohio Court of Appeals · January 15, 2009 · 2009 Ohio 127

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3713859

## Case

- **Full name:** State of Ohio v. Garrison Brown
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** January 15, 2009
- **Citations:** 2009 Ohio 127
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Dissent
- **Judges:** KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed in part, on other grounds by In re Sexual-Offender Reclassification Cases, 126 Ohio St. 3d 322 (2010).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3713859

## Opinion text

{¶ 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3713859. Public record. Not legal advice.