Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2925
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23 (2026)

Illegal processing of drug documents

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
April 9, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 29 (GA 135), Senate Bill 95 (GA 135)
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) No person shall knowingly make a false statement in any prescription, order, report, or record required by Chapter 3719. or 4729. of the Revised Code.

(B) No person shall intentionally make, utter, or sell, or knowingly possess any of the following that is a false or forged:

(1) Prescription;

(2) Uncompleted preprinted prescription blank used for writing a prescription;

(3) Official written order;

(4) License for a terminal distributor of dangerous drugs, as defined in section 4729.01 of the Revised Code;

(5) License for a manufacturer of dangerous drugs, outsourcing facility, third-party logistics provider, repackager of dangerous drugs, or wholesale distributor of dangerous drugs, as defined in section 4729.01 of the Revised Code.

(C) No person, by theft as defined in section 2913.02 of the Revised Code, shall acquire any of the following:

(1) A prescription;

(2) An uncompleted preprinted prescription blank used for writing a prescription;

(3) An official written order;

(4) A blank official written order;

(5) A license or blank license for a terminal distributor of dangerous drugs, as defined in section 4729.01 of the Revised Code;

(6) A license or blank license for a manufacturer of dangerous drugs, outsourcing facility, third-party logistics provider, repackager of dangerous drugs, or wholesale distributor of dangerous drugs, as defined in section 4729.01 of the Revised Code.

(D) No person shall knowingly make or affix any false or forged label to a package or receptacle containing any dangerous drugs.

(E) Divisions (A) and (D) of this section do not apply to licensed health professionals authorized to prescribe drugs, pharmacists, owners of pharmacies, and other persons whose conduct is in accordance with Chapters 3719., 4715., 4723., 4725., 4729., 4730., 4731., 4741., 4772. of the Revised Code.

(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of illegal processing of drug documents. If the offender violates division (B)(2), (4), or (5) or division (C)(2), (4), (5), or (6) of this section, illegal processing of drug documents is a felony of the fifth degree. If the offender violates division (A), division (B)(1) or (3), division (C)(1) or (3), or division (D) of this section, the penalty for illegal processing of drug documents shall be determined as follows:

(1) If the drug involved is a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I or II, with the exception of marihuana, illegal processing of drug documents is a felony of the fourth degree, and division (C) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code applies in determining whether to impose a prison term on the offender.

(2) If the drug involved is a dangerous drug or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule III, IV, or V or is marihuana, illegal processing of drug documents is a felony of the fifth degree, and division (C) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code applies in determining whether to impose a prison term on the offender.

(G)(1) If the offender is a professionally licensed person, in addition to any other sanction imposed for a violation of this section, the court immediately shall comply with section 2925.38 of the Revised Code.

If the offender has a driver's or commercial driver's license or permit, section 2929.33 of the Revised Code applies.

(2) Any offender who received a mandatory suspension of the offender's driver's or commercial driver's license or permit under this section prior to September 13, 2016, may file a motion with the sentencing court requesting the termination of the suspension. However, an offender who pleaded guilty to or was convicted of a violation of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code or a substantially similar municipal ordinance or law of another state or the United States that arose out of the same set of circumstances as the violation for which the offender's license or permit was suspended under this section shall not file such a motion.

Upon the filing of a motion under division (G)(2) of this section, the sentencing court, in its discretion, may terminate the suspension.

(H) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of section 3719.21 of the Revised Code, the clerk of court shall pay a fine imposed for a violation of this section pursuant to division (A) of section 2929.18 of the Revised Code in accordance with and subject to the requirements of division (F) of section 2925.03 of the Revised Code. The agency that receives the fine shall use the fine as specified in division (F) of section 2925.03 of the Revised Code.

The Legislative Service Commission presents the text of this section as a composite of the section as amended by multiple acts of the General Assembly. This presentation recognizes the principle stated in R.C. 1.52(B) that amendments are to be harmonized if reasonably capable of simultaneous operation.

Last updated January 21, 2025 at 11:59 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: State v. Gotsis, 469 N.E.2d 548 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gotsis, 469 N.E.2d 548 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 8× “George Gotsis was charged with seventeen counts of intentionally making, uttering or selling false prescriptions in violation of R.C. 2925.23. Counts 1 through 12 of the indictment involved prescriptions written by the appellant in 1981 for Metropolitan Enforcement Group (“MEG”)…”
State v. Nucklos, 869 N.E.2d 674 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “03(A), and ten counts of illegal processing of drug documents, R.C. 2925.23(A). The state’s theory was that defendant illegally prescribed the drug OxyContin and similar controlled substances used to manage *41 intractable pain to three patients on ten occasions because in doing…”
Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Dick's Pharmacy, 780 N.E.2d 1075 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “{¶ 19} In its first assignment of error, appellant argues that OSBP’s order finding that it committed five counts of illegal processing of drug documents, in violation of R.C. 2925.23, and five counts of illegal distribution of dangerous drugs, in violation of R.”
State v. Sway, 472 N.E.2d 1065 (Ohio 1984). · cites it 3× “It is appellee’s view that only R.C. 2925.23 and 3719.06(A) regulate a physician’s liability for the unlawful prescription of controlled substances.”
State v. Burnett, 755 N.E.2d 857 (Ohio 2001). “14, illegal processing of drug documents in violation of R.C. 2925.23, abusing harmful intoxicants in violation of R.”
State v. Thompkins, 664 N.E.2d 926 (Ohio 1996). “” R.C. 2925.23(H) states in part: “In addition to any other penalty imposed for a violation of this section, the court shall suspend for not less than six months nor more than five years the driver’s or commercial driver’s license of any person who is convicted of or has pleaded…”
State v. Azbell, 112 Ohio St. 3d 300 (Ohio 2006). “Azbell was arrested on April 16, 2004, and was served with an indictment charging her with illegal possession of drug documents in violation of *301 R.C. 2925.23(B)(1) and deception to obtain a dangerous drug in violation of R.”
State v. Lazzerini, 2021 Ohio 1998 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶77} R.C. 2925.23 defines illegal processing of drug documents in pertinent part: (A) No person shall knowingly make a false statement in any prescription, order, report, or record required by Chapter 3719.”
State v. Burnett, 2001 Ohio 1581 (Ohio 2001). “14, illegal processing of drug documents in violation of R.C. 2925.23, abusing harmful intoxicants in violation of R.”
State v. Shoaf, 746 N.E.2d 674 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). “22; one count of illegal processing of drug documents, a violation of R.C. 2925.23; and one count of escape, a violation of R.”
State v. Penn, 576 N.E.2d 790 (Ohio 1991). “03(A)(1), and six counts of illegal processing of drug documents in violation of R.C. 2925.23(B)(1). The court of appeals reversed the conviction.”
State v. Lee, 2013 Ohio 3404 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶ 2} In March 2011, Lee was indicted on 12 counts of illegal processing of drug documents in violation of R.C. 2925.23(A), fourth-degree felonies, and two counts of Butler CA2012-09-182 aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(A) — 7 cases
State v. Nucklos, 869 N.E.2d 674 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “03(A), and ten counts of illegal processing of drug documents, R.C. 2925.23(A). The state’s theory was that defendant illegally prescribed the drug OxyContin and similar controlled substances used to manage *41 intractable pain to three patients on ten occasions because in doing…”
State v. Lee, 2013 Ohio 3404 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶ 2} In March 2011, Lee was indicted on 12 counts of illegal processing of drug documents in violation of R.C. 2925.23(A), fourth-degree felonies, and two counts of Butler CA2012-09-182 aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.”
State v. Mullen, 2011 Ohio 37 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Friedman, 590 N.E.2d 909 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Rivard, 2013 Ohio 4178 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(A)(1) — 1 case
In re B.N.C., 2013 Ohio 4071 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(B) — 5 cases
State v. Reitz, 498 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Selnick, 2001 Ohio 6974 (Ohio 2001).
State v. Friedman, 590 N.E.2d 909 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Williams, 603 N.E.2d 383 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Selnick, 2001 Ohio 6974 (Ohio 2001).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(B)(1) — 16 cases
State v. Gotsis, 469 N.E.2d 548 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “George Gotsis was charged with seventeen counts of intentionally making, uttering or selling false prescriptions in violation of R.C. 2925.23. Counts 1 through 12 of the indictment involved prescriptions written by the appellant in 1981 for Metropolitan Enforcement Group (“MEG”)…”
Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Dick's Pharmacy, 780 N.E.2d 1075 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “{¶ 19} In its first assignment of error, appellant argues that OSBP’s order finding that it committed five counts of illegal processing of drug documents, in violation of R.C. 2925.23, and five counts of illegal distribution of dangerous drugs, in violation of R.”
State v. Azbell, 112 Ohio St. 3d 300 (Ohio 2006). “Azbell was arrested on April 16, 2004, and was served with an indictment charging her with illegal possession of drug documents in violation of *301 R.C. 2925.23(B)(1) and deception to obtain a dangerous drug in violation of R.”
State v. Penn, 576 N.E.2d 790 (Ohio 1991). “03(A)(1), and six counts of illegal processing of drug documents in violation of R.C. 2925.23(B)(1). The court of appeals reversed the conviction.”
Petrilla v. Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy, 794 N.E.2d 706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(B)(1)(F)(1) — 1 case
State ex rel. Brooks v. Miller, 2015 Ohio 3755 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(B)(1)(F)(2) — 1 case
State v. Singh, 2020 Ohio 5604 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(B)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Williams, 603 N.E.2d 383 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Williams v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 605 N.E.2d 1311 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(C)(2) — 1 case
State v. Bright, 2014 Ohio 982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(D) — 1 case
State v. Friedman, 590 N.E.2d 909 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(E) — 1 case
Lazzerini v. Black (N.D. Ohio 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(F)(1) — 1 case
State v. Martin, 2021 Ohio 4246 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(F)(2) — 1 case
Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Dick's Pharmacy, 780 N.E.2d 1075 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “{¶ 19} In its first assignment of error, appellant argues that OSBP’s order finding that it committed five counts of illegal processing of drug documents, in violation of R.C. 2925.23, and five counts of illegal distribution of dangerous drugs, in violation of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.23(H) — 2 cases
State v. Thompkins, 664 N.E.2d 926 (Ohio 1996). “” R.C. 2925.23(H) states in part: “In addition to any other penalty imposed for a violation of this section, the court shall suspend for not less than six months nor more than five years the driver’s or commercial driver’s license of any person who is convicted of or has pleaded…”
State v. Thompkins, 1996 Ohio 264 (Ohio 1996).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.