State v. Towe, (Ohio 1998)

Summary

---

Criminal procedure - Classification as sexual predator - Court of appeals' judgment affirmed on authority of State v. Cook - APPEAL dismissed as improvidently allowed on Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V.

Summary

---

Criminal procedure - Classification as sexual predator - Court of appeals' judgment affirmed on authority of State v. Cook - APPEAL dismissed as improvidently allowed on Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V.

Text

---

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. TOWE, APPELLANT.

[Cite as State v. Towe (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]

Criminal procedure -- Classification as sexual predator -- Court of appeals' judgment affirmed on authority of State v. Cook -- APPEAL dismissed as improvidently allowed on Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V. (Nos. 98-604 and 98-606 -- Submitted October 13, 1998 -- Decided November 25, 1998.)

APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C- 970283.

____________________

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sherry Green, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Schuh & Goldberg and J. Robert Andrews, for appellant.

____________________

The judgment of the court of appeals on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II is affirmed on the authority of State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570.

Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V are dismissed as having been improvidently allowed.

DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in part and dissent in part.

____________________

Cook, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I dissent from the dismissal of Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V.

MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

- 1 -

---