Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

June 9, 2006


Back in January, the Supreme Court ruled in Hernandez v. Kelly that the Adult Parole Authority couldn’t impose post-release controls on a defendant unless he’d been notified about them at the sentencing hearing. This was in accord with the prior case of Woods v. Telb, which held that, because of the principle of separation of powers, the APA couldn’t impose post-release controls unless the trial court included that in its sentence.


Hernandez was a habeas corpus case; the defendant had served a seven-year sentence, then was placed on five years of postrelease control. A few months later, he was stopped by the Texas State Police with $18,000 in his car. The APA determined this was a violation of PRC, and gave him an additional 160 days in prison to ruminate on the error of his ways. Hernandez objected that the APA didn’t have the authority to impose controls, because the trial court hadn’t advised him of that at sentencing, and the Supreme Court agreed.

It obviously flows from Woods and Hernandez that the trial court's failure to advise the defendant of PRC also precludes a later conviction for escape:  if because of that failure the APA can’t impose an additional prison sentence, it can’t impose a requirement that the ex-convict report to a parole officer, and if reporting isn’t required, failure to report can’t be criminalized, either.

In fact, the 8th District has ruled that way on several occasions, most recently in State v. Dameron.  Keep in mind, too, that since Dameron was decided, the Supreme Court held in State v. Jordan that a defendant must be advised of PRC in both the sentencing hearing and the journal entry sentencing, so be sure to check the transcript of the sentencing.  If the judge failed to advise the defendant of post-release controls in either one, the escape charge has to be dismissed.

Search

Recent Entries

  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture
  • July 20, 2017
    Case Update
    A look at the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Oles, and did you know that Justice Ginsburg has a .311 batting average with runners in scoring position? Oh, wait...
  • July 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Judicial bias, RVO specs, 26(B) stuff, waivers of counsel... And more!
  • July 17, 2017
    No more Anders Briefs?
    I have a case now in the 8th District where I came close to filing an Anders brief the other week. It's an appeal from a plea and sentence. The plea hearing was flawless. The judge imposed consecutive sentences, and...
  • July 13, 2017
    Sex offenders and the First Amendment
    Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Packingham v. North Carolina
  • July 12, 2017
    Removing a retained attorney
    What does a judge do if he thinks a retained attorney in a criminal case isn't competent?
  • July 11, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The court does good work on a juvenile bindover case, and the State finally figures out that it should have indicted someone in the first place
  • July 10, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS ends its term; the Ohio Supreme Court issues another opinion, and likely the last one, on the trial tax
  • June 28, 2017
    Plea Bargaining -- The defendant's view
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision last week in Lee v. United States