State v. Condron

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




            THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CONDRON, APPELLANT.
                     [Cite as State v. Condron, 

.]
Criminal procedure—Classification as sexual predator—Court of appeals’
        judgment affirmed on authority of State v. Cook.
(Nos. 98-884 and 98-886—Submitted October 13, 1998—Decided November 25,
                                           1998.)
 APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County,
                                      No. CA 16430.
                                  __________________
        Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Cheryl A. Ross, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
        Charles A. Smiley, Jr., for appellant.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of
State v. Cook (1998), 

, 

.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                                  __________________