(A) If an offender is being sentenced for a sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense that is a misdemeanor committed on or after January 1, 1997, and the offender is a tier III sex offender/child-victim offender relative to the offense or the offense is any offense listed in division (D)(1) to (3) of section 2901.07 of the Revised Code, the judge shall include in the offender's sentence a statement that the offender is a tier III sex offender/child-victim offender, shall comply with the requirements of section 2950.03 of the Revised Code, and shall require the offender to submit to a DNA specimen collection procedure pursuant to section 2901.07 of the Revised Code.
(B) If an offender is being sentenced for a sexually oriented offense or a child-victim oriented offense that is a misdemeanor committed on or after January 1, 1997, the judge shall include in the sentence a summary of the offender's duties imposed under sections 2950.04, 2950.041, 2950.05, and 2950.06 of the Revised Code and the duration of the duties. The judge shall inform the offender, at the time of sentencing, of those duties and of their duration. If required under division (A)(2) of section 2950.03 of the Revised Code, the judge shall perform the duties specified in that section or, if required under division (A)(6) of section 2950.03 of the Revised Code, the judge shall perform the duties specified in that division.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: State v. Sipple, 2021-Ohio-1319, 170 N.E.3d 1273.
State v. Sipple, 2021-Ohio-1319, 170 N.E.3d 1273. · cites it 7ד{¶25} R.C. 2929.23 delineates the requirements a trial court must follow when imposing a sex offender classification for a misdemeanor.”
State v. Gapen, 819 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 4דFormer R.C. 2929.23, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 22, 148 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 8353, 8383-8384, in effect on the day of the murders, see Am.”
Cooke v. Montgomery Cnty., 814 N.E.2d 505 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004). · cites it 5דCooke argues that this concept is relevant because the state statutorily defined duties for electronic home monitoring in R.C. 2929.23. Once again, we must disagree.”
State v. Long, 611 N.E.2d 504 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1992). · cites it 5דAppellant’s third assignment of error reads: “The EMHA program, as developed and administered by the Miami County Municipal Court, is violative of O.R.C. 2929.23.” The record consists of the stipulations of the parties.”
N. Olmstead v. Rock, 2018-Ohio-1084. · cites it 2ד{¶33} Here, the trial court imposed $650 in fines, 60 days in jail with all but ten days suspended, and four years of community control sanctions.”
State v. Inscho, 2019-Ohio-809, 132 N.E.3d 1265. · cites it 2ד21, which governs penalties for misdemeanor offenses, provided: (A) Except as provided in section 2929.23 of the Revised Code, whoever is convicted of or pleads guilty to a misdemeanor other than a minor misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a definite term or fined, or both,…”
State v. Reed (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-4255, 166 N.E.3d 1106. “Former R.C. 2929.23(B)(2), 148 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 8353, 8386, provided as follows: If an eligible offender violates any of the restrictions or requirements imposed upon the eligible offender as part of the eligible offender’s period of electronically monitored house arrest, the…”
State v. Wallace, 2023-Ohio-3014. · cites it 2דSee also R.C. 2929.23(A). In turn, R.C. 2950.03 addresses who is tasked with the responsibility of notifying an offender of the various SORN requirements and when such notification must be given.”
State v. Thadur, 2016-Ohio-417. “Unless a specific sanction is required to be imposed or is precluded from being imposed by the section setting forth an offense or the penalty for an offense or by any provision of sections 2929.23 to 2929.28 of the Revised Code, a court that imposes a sentence upon an offender…”
City of Cleveland Heights v. Lewis, 933 N.E.2d 1146 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2010). “R.C. 2929.23. All applicants for the Ohio Bar examination must report any misdemeanor convictions; indeed, a misdemeanor conviction could form the basis of a suspension from the practice of law.”
State v. Quisenberry, 634 N.E.2d 1009 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 2ד11(A) provides: “Whoever is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony other than aggravated murder or murder, except as provided in division (D), (E), or (H) of this section or section 2929.23 of the Revised Code, shall be imprisoned for an indefinite term * * *.”
State v. Osborne, 2011-Ohio-2363. · cites it 4דFormer R.C. 2929.23, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 22, 148 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 8353, 8383-8384, in effect on the day of the murders, see Am.”
State v. Wallace, 2023-Ohio-3014. “See also R.C. 2929.23(A). In turn, R.C. 2950.03 addresses who is tasked with the responsibility of notifying an offender of the various SORN requirements and when such notification must be given.”
State v. Gapen, 819 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 2004). “Former R.C. 2929.23, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 22, 148 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 8353, 8383-8384, in effect on the day of the murders, see Am.”
Cooke v. Montgomery Cnty., 814 N.E.2d 505 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004). “Cooke argues that this concept is relevant because the state statutorily defined duties for electronic home monitoring in R.C. 2929.23. Once again, we must disagree.”
State v. Osborne, 2011-Ohio-2363. “Former R.C. 2929.23, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 22, 148 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 8353, 8383-8384, in effect on the day of the murders, see Am.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.23(A)(4): 3 cases
State v. Gapen, 819 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 2004). “Former R.C. 2929.23, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 22, 148 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 8353, 8383-8384, in effect on the day of the murders, see Am.”
State v. Long, 611 N.E.2d 504 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1992). “Appellant’s third assignment of error reads: “The EMHA program, as developed and administered by the Miami County Municipal Court, is violative of O.R.C. 2929.23.” The record consists of the stipulations of the parties.”
State v. Osborne, 2011-Ohio-2363. “Former R.C. 2929.23, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 22, 148 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 8353, 8383-8384, in effect on the day of the murders, see Am.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.23(B): 3 cases
State v. Sipple, 2021-Ohio-1319, 170 N.E.3d 1273. “{¶25} R.C. 2929.23 delineates the requirements a trial court must follow when imposing a sex offender classification for a misdemeanor.”
Young v. Swaney, No. 1:23-cv-00037 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 25, 2024).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.23(B)(1): 2 cases
Cooke v. Montgomery Cnty., 814 N.E.2d 505 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004). “Cooke argues that this concept is relevant because the state statutorily defined duties for electronic home monitoring in R.C. 2929.23. Once again, we must disagree.”
State v. Long, 611 N.E.2d 504 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1992). “Appellant’s third assignment of error reads: “The EMHA program, as developed and administered by the Miami County Municipal Court, is violative of O.R.C. 2929.23.” The record consists of the stipulations of the parties.”
State v. Reed (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-4255, 166 N.E.3d 1106. “Former R.C. 2929.23(B)(2), 148 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 8353, 8386, provided as follows: If an eligible offender violates any of the restrictions or requirements imposed upon the eligible offender as part of the eligible offender’s period of electronically monitored house arrest, the…”
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.