State v. Haven

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Haven

827 N.E.2d 319, 105 Ohio St. 3d 418

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 25, 2005

DocketNos. 2004-1073 and 2004-1074

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 827 N.E.2d 319 (State v. Haven) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Haven, 827 N.E.2d 319, 105 Ohio St. 3d 418 (Ohio 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} The Court of Appeals for Wayne County certified the following question to this court: “Can an offender be convicted of a sexually violent predator specification without there being a separate, prior conviction for a sexually violent offense?”

{¶ 2} On the authority of State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St.3d 106, 2004-Ohio-6238, 818 N.E.2d 283, we answer the certified question in the negative. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed to the extent it is inconsistent with State v. Smith, appellant’s sexually-violent-predator specification conviction and sentence are vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing consistent with State v. Smith.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. O’Donnell, J., dissents.

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

{¶ 1} The Court of Appeals for Wayne County certified the following question to this court: “Can an offender be convicted of a sexually violent predator specification without there being a separate, prior conviction for a sexually violent offense?”

{¶ 2} On the authority of State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St.3d 106, 2004-Ohio-6238, 818 N.E.2d 283, we answer the certified question in the negative. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed to the extent it is inconsistent with State v. Smith, appellant’s sexually-violent-predator specification conviction and sentence are vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing consistent with State v. Smith.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. O’Donnell, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

827 N.E.2d 319, 105 Ohio St. 3d 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-haven-ohio-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack