(A)(1) If, prior to July 11, 2006, a court imposed a sentence including a prison term of a type described in division (B)(2) (d) of section 2929.19 of the Revised Code and failed to notify the offender pursuant to that division that the offender will be supervised under section 2967.28 of the Revised Code after the offender leaves prison or to include a statement to that effect in the judgment of conviction entered on the journal or in the sentence pursuant to division (D)(1) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code, at any time before the offender is released from imprisonment under that term and at a hearing conducted in accordance with division (C) of this section, the court may prepare and issue a correction to the judgment of conviction that includes in the judgment of conviction the statement that the offender will be supervised under section 2967.28 of the Revised Code after the offender leaves prison.
If, prior to July 11, 2006, a court imposed a sentence including a prison term of a type described in division (B)(2) (e) of section 2929.19 of the Revised Code and failed to notify the offender pursuant to that division that the offender may be supervised under section 2967.28 of the Revised Code after the offender leaves prison or to include a statement to that effect in the judgment of conviction entered on the journal or in the sentence pursuant to division (D)(2) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code, at any time before the offender is released from imprisonment under that term and at a hearing conducted in accordance with division (C) of this section, the court may prepare and issue a correction to the judgment of conviction that includes in the judgment of conviction the statement that the offender may be supervised under section 2967.28 of the Revised Code after the offender leaves prison.
(2) If a court prepares and issues a correction to a judgment of conviction as described in division (A)(1) of this section before the offender is released from imprisonment under the prison term the court imposed prior to July 11, 2006, the court shall place upon the journal of the court an entry nunc pro tunc to record the correction to the judgment of conviction and shall provide a copy of the entry to the offender or, if the offender is not physically present at the hearing, shall send a copy of the entry to the department of rehabilitation and correction for delivery to the offender. If the court sends a copy of the entry to the department, the department promptly shall deliver a copy of the entry to the offender. The court's placement upon the journal of the entry nunc pro tunc before the offender is released from imprisonment under the term shall be considered, and shall have the same effect, as if the court at the time of original sentencing had included the statement in the sentence and the judgment of conviction entered on the journal and had notified the offender that the offender will be so supervised regarding a sentence including a prison term of a type described in division (B)(2) (d) of section 2929.19 of the Revised Code or that the offender may be so supervised regarding a sentence including a prison term of a type described in division (B)(2) (e) of that section.
(B)(1) If, prior to July 11, 2006, a court imposed a sentence including a prison term and failed to notify the offender pursuant to division (B)(2) (f) of section 2929.19 of the Revised Code regarding the possibility of the parole board imposing a prison term for a violation of supervision or a condition of post-release control or to include in the judgment of conviction entered on the journal a statement to that effect, at any time before the offender is released from imprisonment under that term and at a hearing conducted in accordance with division (C) of this section, the court may prepare and issue a correction to the judgment of conviction that includes in the judgment of conviction the statement that if a period of supervision is imposed following the offender's release from prison, as described in division (B)(2) (d) or (e) of section 2929.19 of the Revised Code, and if the offender violates that supervision or a condition of post-release control imposed under division (B) of section 2967.131 of the Revised Code the parole board may impose as part of the sentence a prison term of up to one-half of the stated prison term originally imposed upon the offender.
(2) If the court prepares and issues a correction to a judgment of conviction as described in division (B)(1) of this section before the offender is released from imprisonment under the term, the court shall place upon the journal of the court an entry nunc pro tunc to record the correction to the judgment of conviction and shall provide a copy of the entry to the offender or, if the offender is not physically present at the hearing, shall send a copy of the entry to the department of rehabilitation and correction for delivery to the offender. If the court sends a copy of the entry to the department, the department promptly shall deliver a copy of the entry to the offender. The court's placement upon the journal of the entry nunc pro tunc before the offender is released from imprisonment under the term shall be considered, and shall have the same effect, as if the court at the time of original sentencing had included the statement in the judgment of conviction entered on the journal and had notified the offender pursuant to division (B)(2) (f) of section 2929.19 of the Revised Code regarding the possibility of the parole board imposing a prison term for a violation of supervision or a condition of post-release control.
(C) On and after July 11, 2006, a court that wishes to prepare and issue a correction to a judgment of conviction of a type described in division (A)(1) or (B)(1) of this section shall not issue the correction until after the court has conducted a hearing in accordance with this division. Before a court holds a hearing pursuant to this division, the court shall provide notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the hearing to the offender who is the subject of the hearing, the prosecuting attorney of the county, and the department of rehabilitation and correction. The offender has the right to be physically present at the hearing, except that, upon the court's own motion or the motion of the offender or the prosecuting attorney, the court may permit the offender to appear at the hearing by video conferencing equipment if available and compatible. An appearance by video conferencing equipment pursuant to this division has the same force and effect as if the offender were physically present at the hearing. At the hearing, the offender and the prosecuting attorney may make a statement as to whether the court should issue a correction to the judgment of conviction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 405
cases (59 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: State v. Bloomer, 2009 Ohio 2462 (Ohio 2009).
State v. Bloomer, 2009 Ohio 2462 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 74דThe 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 postrelease control or to impose it.”
State v. Qualls, 2012 Ohio 1111 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 48ד4 January Term, 2012 sentence imposed prior to the effective date of R.C. 2929.191, a trial court’s sentencing entry that failed to include postrelease control is void.”
State v. Holdcroft, 2013 Ohio 5014 (Ohio 2013). · cites it 45דRather than continue the void/voidable dichotomy with its attendant complications, I would merely focus on R.C. 2929.191, the statute that allows the trial court to correct “a judgment of conviction * * * before the offender is released from imprisonment under the prison term…”
State v. Ketterer, 2010 OH 3831 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 26דBecause mandatory postrelease control was not properly imposed, however, we remand the case for the trial court to conduct a hearing under R.C. 2929.191. I. Case Background {¶ 2} Appellant, Donald J.”
State v. Williams (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7658 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 10ד{¶ 49} In response to these postrelease-control cases, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2929.191, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 137, 151 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 7622, effective July 11, 2006, which authorizes a judge to correct a sentence when an offender was not properly notified of mandatory…”
State v. Bates (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 475 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 12דThus, regardless of R.C. 2929.191 or the so-called “harmless error” language in former R.”
State v. Fry, 2010 Ohio 1017 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 8ד{¶ 6} We affirm the convictions and sentence of death, but remand for imposition of postrelease control pursuant to R.C. 2929.191 on the sentences for domestic violence, tampering with evidence, intimidation of a crime victim or witness, and menacing by stalking.”
State v. Schleiger (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3970 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 14דThe court imposed a sentence of eight years on the felonious assault charge and a term of 18 months on the concealed weapon charge, consecutively served. {¶ 4} Schleiger appealed, and the appellate court determined that the trial court did not properly impose postrelease…”
State v. Lang, 2011 Ohio 4215 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 6ד{¶ 2} We affirm Lang’s convictions and sentences of death and life without parole, but we remand for the proper imposition of postrelease control pursuant to R.C. 2929.191 on his sentence for aggravated robbery.”
State v. Harper (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 2913 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 4ד137, 151 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 7622, 7659-7661, which, among other changes, enacted R.C. 2929.191, effective July 11, 2006. See Singleton at ¶ 25.”
State v. Wolfe, 2020 Ohio 5501 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6דSection 2929.191 of the Revised Code applies if, prior to July 11, 2006, a court imposed a sentence including a prison term of a type described in division (B)(2)(d) of this section and failed to notify the offender pursuant to division (B)(2)(d) of this section regarding…”
State v. Fischer, 2010 Ohio 6238 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 4דIn light of the General Assembly’s enactment of R.C. 2929.191, it is likely that our work in this regard is drawing to a close, at least for purposes of void sentences.”
State v. Qualls, 2012 Ohio 1111 (Ohio 2012). “4 January Term, 2012 sentence imposed prior to the effective date of R.C. 2929.191, a trial court’s sentencing entry that failed to include postrelease control is void.”
State v. Bloomer, 2009 Ohio 2462 (Ohio 2009). “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 postrelease control or to impose it.”
State v. Williams (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7658 (Ohio 2016). “{¶ 49} In response to these postrelease-control cases, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2929.191, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 137, 151 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 7622, effective July 11, 2006, which authorizes a judge to correct a sentence when an offender was not properly notified of mandatory…”
State v. Holdcroft, 2013 Ohio 5014 (Ohio 2013). “Rather than continue the void/voidable dichotomy with its attendant complications, I would merely focus on R.C. 2929.191, the statute that allows the trial court to correct “a judgment of conviction * * * before the offender is released from imprisonment under the prison term…”
State v. Holdcroft, 2013 Ohio 5014 (Ohio 2013). “Rather than continue the void/voidable dichotomy with its attendant complications, I would merely focus on R.C. 2929.191, the statute that allows the trial court to correct “a judgment of conviction * * * before the offender is released from imprisonment under the prison term…”
State v. Ketterer, 2010 OH 3831 (Ohio 2010). “Because mandatory postrelease control was not properly imposed, however, we remand the case for the trial court to conduct a hearing under R.C. 2929.191. I. Case Background {¶ 2} Appellant, Donald J.”
State v. Qualls, 2012 Ohio 1111 (Ohio 2012). “4 January Term, 2012 sentence imposed prior to the effective date of R.C. 2929.191, a trial court’s sentencing entry that failed to include postrelease control is void.”
State v. Bates (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 475 (Ohio 2022). “Thus, regardless of R.C. 2929.191 or the so-called “harmless error” language in former R.”
State v. Williams (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7658 (Ohio 2016). “{¶ 49} In response to these postrelease-control cases, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2929.191, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 137, 151 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 7622, effective July 11, 2006, which authorizes a judge to correct a sentence when an offender was not properly notified of mandatory…”
State v. Schleiger (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3970 (Ohio 2014). “The court imposed a sentence of eight years on the felonious assault charge and a term of 18 months on the concealed weapon charge, consecutively served. {¶ 4} Schleiger appealed, and the appellate court determined that the trial court did not properly impose postrelease…”
State v. Lang, 2011 Ohio 4215 (Ohio 2011). “{¶ 2} We affirm Lang’s convictions and sentences of death and life without parole, but we remand for the proper imposition of postrelease control pursuant to R.C. 2929.191 on his sentence for aggravated robbery.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.