Legal Opinion

State v. Harris

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1993No. 91-1557PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtA. William Sweeney, J.

The . dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the requirement of former R.C. 2951.03, that a trial court consider a written presentence investigation report before granting shock probation, is jurisdictional. For the reasons that follow, we hold that such a written report is a necessary condition precedent before a trial court can grant such probation, and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals below and remand the cause to the trial court.

R.C. 2947.061,1 which is generally referred to as the “shock probation” statute, see State ex rel. Corrigan v. Court of Common…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Munic. Court v. State, Ex Rel.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933
  2. State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State ex rel. Corrigan v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1976

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. EatonOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  2. State v. PowellOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  3. State v. DigrinoOhio Court of Appeals · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API