1998 OHIO 577 - State v. Fortman

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

84 Ohio St.3d 14

.]




            THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. FORTMAN, APPELLANT.
                     [Cite as State v. Fortman,

1998-Ohio-577

.]
Criminal procedure—Classification as sexual predator—Court of appeals’
        judgment on Proposition of Law No. I affirmed on authority of State v.
        Cook—APPEAL dismissed as improvidently allowed on Proposition of Law
        No. II.
   (No. 98-899—Submitted October 13, 1998—Decided November 25, 1998.)
   APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 16565.
                                      __________________
        Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Cheryl A. Ross, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Rudd, Silverberg, Zaharieff & Orlins Co., L.P.A., and Anthony J. Zaharieff,
for appellant.
                                      __________________
        {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals on Proposition of Law No. I is
affirmed on the authority of State v. Cook (1998),

83 Ohio St.3d 404

700 N.E.2d 570

.
        {¶ 2} The appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently allowed on
Proposition of Law No. II.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                                  __________________