July 31, 2006
Got a lot of work to catch up on today, so just a short note...
Back in 2004, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Ohio v. Jordan, held that a trial court had to apprise the defendant of post-release controls (PRC) both at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing journal entry. Earlier this year, it followed up that decision by holding, in Hernandez v. Kelly, that if the Court failed to do that, PRC couldn't be imposed.
This issue often arises on appeal, and the appellate court routinely remands the case for resentencing, telling the judge to get it right. But what happens if there's not an appeal? As I pointed out a couple months back, failure to notify a defendant of PRC precludes a later conviction for escape. If that was questionable before Hernandez, it certainly isn't afterward. But the sentencing court couldn't correct the error on its own, because it loses jurisdiction to modify sentencing after the defendant is sent to the institution.
So a couple of weeks ago, new section RC 2929.191 went into effect, allowing the trial courts to correct a sentencing entry to include PRC. The court has to hold a hearing in order to do that, at which the defendant must be present, either in person or through the magic of video.
Comments