offender upon violation in Ohio

2018I read the syllabus of State v. Fraley , 105 Ohio St.3d 13 , 821 N.E.2d 995 , 2004-Ohio-7110 , to clearly state that a trial court sentencing an offender upon a violation of community control must, at the time of such sentencing, notify the offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for an additional violation of the conditions as a prerequisite to imposing a prison term for a subsequent violation.

2018I read the syllabus of State v. Fraley , 105 Ohio St.3d 13 , 821 N.E.2d 995 , 2004-Ohio-7110 , to clearly state that a trial court sentencing an offender upon a violation of community control must, at the time of such sentencing, notify the offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for an additional violation of the conditions as a prerequisite to imposing a prison term for a subsequent violation.

2013Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶9} In State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2004-Ohio-7110 , 821 N.E.2d 995 , the court expanded upon Brooks, and held, pursuant to the same statutes, that a trial court sentencing an offender upon a violation of the offender’s community control sanction must, at the time of such sentencing, notify the offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for an additional violation of the conditions of the sanction, as a prerequisite to imposing a prison term on the offender for such a subsequent violation.

2005The Court held in State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 , 2004-Ohio-4746 , that: "[P]ursuant to R.C. 2929.19 (B)(5) and 2929.15 (B), a trial court sentencing an offender to a community control sanction must, at the time of sentencing, notify the offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for a violation of the conditions of the sanction, as a prerequisite to imposing a prison term on the offender for a subsequent violation." Id at ¶ 29. {¶ 10} In addition, the Supreme Court clarified the timing of the required notification in State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2004-Ohio-7110 , co

2026The Court observed “[t]he trial court could therefore comply with both the sentencing statutes and our holding in Brooks[, 2004-Ohio-4746 ,] if at this second hearing the court PAGE 14 OF 21 Case Nos. 2025-P-0019, 2025-P-0020, 2025-P-0021 notifies the offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for a subsequent violation occurring after this second hearing.” Fraley at ¶ 17 . {¶38} Pursuant to Howard, 2020-Ohio-3195 , however, the Supreme Court rejected the position that its “holding in Fraley [requires] that a trial court must repeat the prison-term notification at every revocatio

2018Muskingum No. CT2017-0032, 2018-Ohio-1155 .

2014Cuyahoga No. 99296, 2013-Ohio-3250 .

2005No. 22359, 2005-Ohio-2148 , where we concluded that: "Based on the foregoing and the continuous goal of `truth in sentencing,' we hold that a trial court must first notify a defendant at a sentencing hearing of the specific prison term it will impose if he violates community control.

2004E-02- 050 and E-02-051, 2003-Ohio-6976 . ____________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT Pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) and 2929.15(B), a trial court sentencing an offender upon a violation of the offender’s community control sanction must, at the time of such sentencing, notify the offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for an additional violation of the conditions of the sanction as a prerequisite to imposing a prison term on the offender for such a subsequent violation. ____________________ O’CONNOR, J.