(A) The determination by a court that an offender is a repeat violent offender is precluded unless the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the offender specifies that the offender is a repeat violent 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 repeat violent offender)."
(B) The court shall determine the issue of whether an offender is a repeat violent offender.
(C) At the arraignment of the defendant or as soon thereafter as is practicable, the prosecuting attorney may give notice to the defendant of the prosecuting attorney's intention to use a certified copy of the entry of judgment of a prior conviction as proof of that prior conviction. The defendant must then give notice to the prosecuting attorney of the defendant's intention to object to the use of the entry of judgment. If the defendant pursuant to Criminal Rule 12 does not give notice of that intention to the prosecuting attorney before trial, the defendant waives the objection to the use of an entry of judgment as proof of the defendant's prior conviction, as shown on the entry of judgment.
(D) As used in this section, "repeat violent offender" has the same meaning as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 268
cases (126 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 2דR.C. 2941.149(A). . R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(4)®.”
State v. Harris, 2016 Ohio 3424 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5ד{¶ 46} R.C. 2941.149 contains the repeat violent offender specification.”
State v. Banks, 2015 Ohio 5413 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 13דThe trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the jury to determine the existence and nature of appellant’s prior conviction for an offense of violence, in violation of R.C. 2941.149. III. The trial court committed prejudicial error when it refused to properly…”
State v. Lodwick, 2018 Ohio 3710 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8דThe indictment also included a repeat violent offender specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.149. A superseding indictment was filed on September 5, 2017, amending the burglary count to charge a violation of R.”
State v. Sowell (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8025 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 3ד148, a repeat-violent- offender specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.149, and a prior-conviction specification reflecting a prior conviction of attempted rape.”
State v. Obermiller (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1594 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2ד13(F)(6)) and repeat-violent-offender (R.C. 2941.149(A)) specifications. {¶ 18} Counts 1 and 4 charged Obermiller with the aggravated murders of Donald and Candace, respectively, with prior calculation and design.”
State v. Junod, 2019 Ohio 743 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5ד145(A), a Repeat Violent Offender specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.149(A), and a specification for Forfeiture of a Weapon pursuant to R.”
State v. Goney, 2018 Ohio 2115 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6ד14(B)(2)(b) finds the following: The Defendant is convicted of a R.C. 2941.149 specification that the Defendant is a repeat violent offender.”
State v. Fenderson, 2023 Ohio 2903 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7ד14(B)(2)(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “the court may impose on an offender * * * an additional definite prison term of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, or ten years if all of the following criteria are met”: (i) The offender is convicted of or pleads…”
State v. Watts, 2017 Ohio 532 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5דrelevant part: (b) The court shall impose on an offender the longest prison term authorized or required for the offense and shall impose on the offender an additional definite prison term of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, or ten years if all of the…”
State v. Cunningham, 2024 Ohio 2032 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8ד21AP-470 2 to R.C. 2941.149. The charges against appellant arose from three separate bank robberies that occurred in Columbus, Ohio on November 2, November 9, and November 14, 2018.”
State v. Gilmer, 2024 Ohio 1178 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3ד145(A), (B), (C), and (F) and R.C. 2941.149 (Counts 1 and 2); discharge of a firearm at or near a prohibited premises, a violation of R.”
State v. Obermiller (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1594 (Ohio 2016). “13(F)(6)) and repeat-violent-offender (R.C. 2941.149(A)) specifications. {¶ 18} Counts 1 and 4 charged Obermiller with the aggravated murders of Donald and Candace, respectively, with prior calculation and design.”
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). “R.C. 2941.149(A). . R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(4)®.”
State v. Junod, 2019 Ohio 743 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “145(A), a Repeat Violent Offender specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.149(A), and a specification for Forfeiture of a Weapon pursuant to R.”
State v. Fenderson, 2023 Ohio 2903 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “14(B)(2)(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “the court may impose on an offender * * * an additional definite prison term of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, or ten years if all of the following criteria are met”: (i) The offender is convicted of or pleads…”
State v. Banks, 2015 Ohio 5413 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “The trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the jury to determine the existence and nature of appellant’s prior conviction for an offense of violence, in violation of R.C. 2941.149. III. The trial court committed prejudicial error when it refused to properly…”
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). “R.C. 2941.149(A). . R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(4)®.”
State v. Harris, 2016 Ohio 3424 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “{¶ 46} R.C. 2941.149 contains the repeat violent offender specification.”
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.