The Ohio Supreme Court yesterday released a Hamilton County appellant from post-release controls because he had completed serving his sentence in prison, and, pursuant to a 2007 precedent, declared he was no longer subject to resentencing. (See State v. Bankhead, 2007-0818)
The rationale used by the Court, here, was based on its decision in State v. Bloomer, three months ago. In that case, the Court "again confronted the consequences of a trial court's failure to either notify an offender about post-release control at the time of sentencing or incorporate post-release control into its sentencing entry. The issues presented here also concern the application of R.C. 2929.191, which provides a mechanism for correcting a judgment entry if a trial court fails to notify the offender of post-release control or to impose it."
Beginning with a 1984 case, the Court in Bloomer proceeded to chronicle seven cases since, noting that "in conformity with the development of this jurisprudence, the General Assembly enacted Sub.H.B. No. 137 ('H.B. 137'), effective July 11,2006, which amended R.C. 2967.28, 2929.14, and 2929.19 and enacted R.C.2929.191 to provide a mechanism for correcting sentences in which the trial court failed either to notify the offender of post-release control or to incorporate it into the sentencing entry."
ORC §2967.28 [ Post-release Controls ]
ORC § 2929.14 [ Definite Prison Terms ]
ORC § 2929.19 [ Sentencing Hearings ]
ORC § 2929.191 [ Correction of judgment of conviction to include supervision information ]