Ohio reviewing mandatory supervision cases

Last June 9th., the Ohio Supreme Court again addressed the consequences of a trial court's failure to either notify an offender about post-release control at the time of sentencing or incorporating post-release controls into its sentencing entry. Also at issue was the application of ORC §2929.191, which provides a mechanism for correcting a judgment entry if the trial court does fail to notify an offender of those controls or impose it. The Court there held that "in the absence of a proper sentencing entry imposing post-release control, a parole board's imposition of post-release control cannot be enforced." [See State v. Bloomer, 2009 Ohio 2462 ]

HB 137, amended ORC §2967.28, §2929.14, and §2929.19 and enacted §2929.191 to provide a "mechanism for correcting sentences in which a trial court failed either to notify the offender of post-release control or to incorporate it into the sentencing entry", became effective July 11, 2006. The Court also noted "the legislature had amended ORC § 2929.14(F)(1) to provide: 'If a court imposes a sentence including a prison term of a type described in this division on or after July 11, 2006, the failure of a court to include a post-release control requirement in the sentence pursuant to this division does not negate, limit, or otherwise affect the mandatory period of post-release control that is required for the offender under division (B) of section 2967.28 of the Revised Code.'"

The Court reviewed a number of its previous considerations of sentencing courts failing to follow the requirements of sentencing statutes dating back to 1984 and, most recently, last year in State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568, where it said, "[I]n cases in which a defendant is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, an offense for which post-release control is required but not properly included in the sentence, the sentence is void, and the state is entitled to a new sentencing hearing to have post-release control imposed on the defendant unless the defendant has completed his sentence." Consistent with all, however, was the requirement that "the sentencing courts must impose post-release control before an offender completes the stated term of imprisonment."

As a consequence of this decision, the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction must now re-examine other cases, including those of nearly 15,000 former prisoners under state supervision and more than 200 inmates returned to prison for violating post-release control.