State v. Condron
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CONDRON, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Condron (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] Criminal procedure Classification as sexual predator Court of appeals judgment affirmed on authority of State v. Cook. (Nos. 98-884 and 98-886 Submitted October 13, 1998 Decided November 25, 1998.) APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 16430. __________________ Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Cheryl A. Ross, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Charles A. Smiley, Jr., for appellant. __________________ The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
