State v. Smith

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




              THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SMITH, APPELLANT.
                        [Cite as State v. Smith, 

.]
Criminal law—Drug offenses—R.C. 2925.14(H) does not violate the due process
        or equal protection provisions of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.
          (No. 95-1183—Submitted June 5, 1996—Decided July 3, 1996.)
    APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Washington County, No. 94 CA 21.
                                  __________________
        Robert J. Smith, for appellee.
        David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender.
        J. Michael Westfall, Assistant Public Defender, and Janet A. Fogle,
Washington County Public Defender, for appellant.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals, upholding the constitutionality
of R.C. 2925.14(H), is affirmed on the authority of State v. Thompkins (1996), 

, ___ N.E.2d ___.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                                  __________________