State v. Petty

2009 Ohio 1906, 121 Ohio St. 3d 607
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 29, 2009·No. 2009-0132·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as to its ruling on appellant’s eleventh assignment of error below, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing consistent with State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent and would not accept the appeal. *608 James J. Mayer Jr., Richland County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten Pscholka-Gartner, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Shaw & Miller and Mark J. Miller, for appellant.

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

State v. Petty, 2009 Ohio 1906, 121 Ohio St. 3d 607 (Ohio 2009).

2009 Ohio 1906 (State v. Petty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Petty
2011 Ohio 2985 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)