(A) Except as provided in sections 2925.03 and 2925.11 and division (E)(1) of section 2925.05 of the Revised Code, the determination by a court that an offender is a major drug offender is precluded unless the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the offender specifies that the offender is a major drug offender. The specification shall be stated at the end of the body of the indictment, count, or information, and shall be stated in substantially the following form:
"SPECIFICATION (or, SPECIFICATION TO THE FIRST COUNT). The Grand Jurors (or insert the person's or prosecuting attorney's name when appropriate) further find and specify that (set forth that the offender is a major drug offender)."
(B) Imposition of a three, four, five, six, seven, or eight-year mandatory prison term upon an offender under division (B)(11) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code, pursuant to determination by a court that an offender is a major drug offender, is precluded unless the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the offender with the violation of section 2925.03, 2925.05, or 2925.11 of the Revised Code specifies that the offender is a major drug offender and that the drug involved in the violation is a fentanyl-related compound or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing a fentanyl-related compound. The specification shall be stated at the end of the body of the indictment, count, or information, and shall be stated in substantially the following form:
"SPECIFICATION (or, SPECIFICATION TO THE FIRST COUNT). The Grand Jurors (or insert the person's or prosecuting attorney's name when appropriate) further find and specify that (set forth that the offender is a major drug offender and the drug involved in the violation is a fentanyl-related compound or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing a fentanyl-related compound)."
(C) The court shall determine the issue of whether an offender is a major drug offender.
(D) As used in this section, "major drug offender" has the same meaning as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 101
cases (55 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: State v. Gonzales (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8319, 150 Ohio St. 3d 261.
State v. Gonzales (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8319, 150 Ohio St. 3d 261. · cites it 2דR.C. 2941.1410(A). R.C. 2929.01(W) includes in its definition of MDO “an offender” convicted of possessing “at least one hundred grams of cocaine.”
State v. Chandler, 813 N.E.2d 65 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2004). · cites it 6דThe indictment also contained a major-drug-offender specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.1410. Plaintiff appellee is the state of Ohio.”
State v. Elkins, 773 N.E.2d 593 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2002). · cites it 4ד{¶ 23} Defendant, however, also claims that Ohio’s current major drug offender sentencing scheme is facially unconstitutional because, pursuant to R.C. 2941.1410, it leaves the determination of major drug offender status to the trial court, not the jury.”
State v. Dues, 2014-Ohio-5276. · cites it 4ד{¶47} R.C. 2941.1410 (“Specification that offender is a major drug offender”) sets forth the general statutory framework for MDO.”
State v. Willan, 2013-Ohio-2405, 994 N.E.2d 400. · cites it 8ד54 of the Revised Code that includes the sale, offer to sell, or possession of a schedule I or II controlled substance, with the exception of marihuana, and the court imposing sentence upon the offender finds that the offender is guilty of a specification of the type described…”
State v. Gill, 2024-Ohio-2792, 260 N.E.3d 449. · cites it 4ד14(B)(11) states that the trial court shall impose an additional mandatory prison term “if the drug involved in the violation is a fentanyl-related compound or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing a fentanyl-related compound” and if the offender also is…”
State v. Hill, 2022-Ohio-4544, 218 N.E.3d 891. “See R.C. 2941.1410. This meant that Hill was facing a mandatory indefinite sentence of 11 to 16.”
State v. Davis, 2022-Ohio-4767. · cites it 3ד03(A) (2) and (C) (8) (g), a felony of the first degree, with a major drug offender (“MDO”) specification attached pursuant to R.C. 2941.1410. At this point, appellant retained counsel and on January 31, 2017, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.”
State v. Barnes, 2020-Ohio-3943. · cites it 5דThe record before us indicates that the jury essentially determined Barnes 1 The current version of R.C. 2941.1410 went into effect on October 31, 2018 and is not applicable to the present case.”
State v. Colston, 2020-Ohio-3879. · cites it 2ד{¶105} R.C. 2941.1410, provides, in relevant part, (A) Except as provided in sections 2925.”
State v. Willan, 2011-Ohio-6603. · cites it 4דThrough legislative amendments over the next four years, however, twelve more drug offenses were added to this provision, as well as a reference to the major drug offender specification under R.C. 2941.1410, each with its 47 Revised Code section identified.”
State v. Duvernay, 2017-Ohio-4219, 92 N.E.3d 262. · cites it 3ד11(A), (C)(6)(f), a first-degree felony, with a major drug offender ("MDO") specification under R.C. 2941.1410(A) and four automobile-forfeiture specifications under R.”
State v. Gonzales (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8319, 150 Ohio St. 3d 261. “R.C. 2941.1410(A). R.C. 2929.01(W) includes in its definition of MDO “an offender” convicted of possessing “at least one hundred grams of cocaine.”
State v. Duvernay, 2017-Ohio-4219, 92 N.E.3d 262. “11(A), (C)(6)(f), a first-degree felony, with a major drug offender ("MDO") specification under R.C. 2941.1410(A) and four automobile-forfeiture specifications under R.”
State v. Elkins, 773 N.E.2d 593 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2002). “{¶ 23} Defendant, however, also claims that Ohio’s current major drug offender sentencing scheme is facially unconstitutional because, pursuant to R.C. 2941.1410, it leaves the determination of major drug offender status to the trial court, not the jury.”
State v. Dues, 2014-Ohio-5276. “{¶47} R.C. 2941.1410 (“Specification that offender is a major drug offender”) sets forth the general statutory framework for MDO.”
State v. Gill, 2024-Ohio-2792, 260 N.E.3d 449. “14(B)(11) states that the trial court shall impose an additional mandatory prison term “if the drug involved in the violation is a fentanyl-related compound or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing a fentanyl-related compound” and if the offender also is…”
State v. Barnes, 2020-Ohio-3943. “The record before us indicates that the jury essentially determined Barnes 1 The current version of R.C. 2941.1410 went into effect on October 31, 2018 and is not applicable to the present case.”
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.