Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Willan

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 11, 2013No. 2012-0216Published

1DissentLanzinger, J.

{¶ 13} The majority reads former R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a) as unambiguous, concluding that “R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a) lists the four offender categories in the disjunctive, signaling that each has a meaning independent from the others and that the existence of any one is sufficient to trigger the mandatory ten-year prison term.” Majority opinion at ¶ 8. This conclusion is a rejection of an alternative and plausible interpretation accepted by the three judges on the appellate panel of the Ninth District — that there was no legislative intent to “unequivocally impose a mandatory 10-year prison term for…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. LanierSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. United States v. BassSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Moskal v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Bifulco v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API