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.
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at
84 Ohio St.3d 26
.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. TOWE, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Towe,
1998-Ohio-703
.]
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.
__________________
{¶ 1} 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),
.
{¶ 2} 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.
{¶ 3} I dissent from the dismissal of Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and
V.
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
__________________
