State v. Hagan

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 1047

Syllabus

Statements made by the trial court regarding the various requirements and restrictions appellant faced as a Tier III sex offender were such that the trial court, at worst, substantially complied with the nonconstitutional provisions of Crim.R. 11(C) despite the trial court's failure to explicitly notify appellant that he would be subject to a mandatory community notification requirement. There was also no error in the trial court's sentencing decision where the trial court's statement that appellant held a \position of trust\ was not based on an impermissible finding under R.C. 2929.12(B)(3) but merely a reference to appellant's relationship to the victim as permissible under R.C. 2929.12(B)(6).