State v. Harrold

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Harrold

99 Ohio St. 3d 473

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 27, 2003·No. Nos. 2002-2236 and 2003-0180·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for resentencing on the authority of State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. O’Connor, J., concurs in judgment based only on stare decisis. Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard S. Kasay, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. David H. Bodiker, State Public Defender, and Stephen P. Hardwick, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents for the reasons stated in Judge Grady’s dissenting opinion in State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for resentencing on the authority of State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. O’Connor, J., concurs in judgment based only on stare decisis. Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard S. Kasay, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. David H. Bodiker, State Public Defender, and Stephen P. Hardwick, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents for the reasons stated in Judge Grady’s dissenting opinion in State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473.

State v. Harrold, 99 Ohio St. 3d 473 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

99 Ohio St. 3d 473 (State v. Harrold) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related