Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2929 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.61 (2026)

Sentencing under prior law

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 22, 2019
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 201 - 132nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Persons charged with a capital offense committed prior to January 1, 1974, shall be prosecuted under the law as it existed at the time the offense was committed, and, if convicted, shall be imprisoned for life, except that whenever the statute under which any such person is prosecuted provides for a lesser penalty under the circumstances of the particular case, such lesser penalty shall be imposed.

(B) Persons charged with an offense, other than a capital offense, committed prior to January 1, 1974, shall be prosecuted under the law as it existed at the time the offense was committed. Persons convicted or sentenced on or after January 1, 1974, for an offense committed prior to January 1, 1974, shall be sentenced according to the penalty for commission of the substantially equivalent offense under Amended Substitute House Bill 511 of the 109th General Assembly. If the offense for which sentence is being imposed does not have a substantial equivalent under that act, or if that act provides a more severe penalty than that originally prescribed for the offense of which the person is convicted, then sentence shall be imposed under the law as it existed prior to January 1, 1974.

(C) Persons charged with an offense that is a felony of the third or fourth degree and that was committed on or after January 1, 1974, and before July 1, 1983, shall be prosecuted under the law as it existed at the time the offense was committed. Persons convicted or sentenced on or after July 1, 1983, for an offense that is a felony of the third or fourth degree and that was committed on or after January 1, 1974, and before July 1, 1983, shall be notified by the court sufficiently in advance of sentencing that they may choose to be sentenced pursuant to either the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense or the law in effect at the time of sentencing. This notice shall be written and shall include the differences between and possible effects of the alternative sentence forms and the effect of the person's refusal to choose. The person to be sentenced shall then inform the court in writing of the person's choice, and shall be sentenced accordingly. Any person choosing to be sentenced pursuant to the law in effect at the time of the commission of an offense that is a felony of the third or fourth degree shall then be eligible for parole, and this person cannot at a later date have the person's sentence converted to a definite sentence. If the person refuses to choose between the two possible sentences, the person shall be sentenced pursuant to the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense.

(D) Persons charged with an offense that was a felony of the first or second degree at the time it was committed, that was committed on or after January 1, 1974, and that was committed prior to July 1, 1983, shall be prosecuted for that offense and, if convicted, shall be sentenced under the law as it existed at the time the offense was committed.

(E) Persons charged with an offense that is a felony of the first or second degree that was committed prior to the effective date of this amendment shall be prosecuted for that offense and, if convicted, shall be sentenced under the law as it existed at the time the offense was committed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1984–2019 · leading case: State ex rel. Ridenour v. O'Connell (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7368 (Ohio 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Ridenour v. O'Connell (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7368 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2× “Ridenour asserts that under R.C. 2929.61(A), none of his sentences should have been greater than 1 to 20 years and that they should have been imposed to run concurrently rather than consecutively.”
State v. Jones, 506 N.E.2d 1187 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 7× “In her first assignment of error, defendant takes exception to the judge’s ruling in this regard and argues that the trial court failed to comply with the sentencing procedures required by R.C. 2929.61(C). Specifically, defendant contends that R.”
State v. Ragland, 478 N.E.2d 1014 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “On the fourth degree felony of aggravated assault, the court neglected to inform defendant of his right to choose to be sentenced under the law in effect at the time the offense was committed, or the law in effect at the time of sentencing, per R.C. 2929.61(C). That section of…”
State v. Shinkle, 499 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “” 2 R.C. 2929.61(C) provides in part that: “* * * Persons convicted or sentenced on or after July 1, 1983, for an offense that is a felony of the third or fourth degree and that *55 was committed on or after January 1, 1974, and before July 1, 1983, shall be notified by the…”
State v. McColloch, 603 N.E.2d 1106 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “However, pursuant to R.C. 2929.61(D), defendant should have been sentenced under the provisions of R.”
Swihart v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2014 Ohio 3305 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Furlough and Honor Status {¶ 29} Appellant contends that, pursuant to R.C. 2929.61(D) and 1.58, the laws in effect when he was convicted in 1977 must still be applied to him, and under those laws he has a right to furlough release.”
Ridenour v. Shoop (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 1313 (Ohio 2019). · cites it 3× “{¶ 7} Ridenour relies on R.C. 2929.61(A) to argue that he should be sentenced in accordance with the lesser included charge of manslaughter, rather than second-degree murder.”
State v. Ahedo, 470 N.E.2d 904 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “The defendant also relies on R.C. 2929.61 (C), effective July 1,1983, to support his contention that the applicable punishment statute should be that one in effect at the time the offense was committed.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.61(A) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Ridenour v. O'Connell (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7368 (Ohio 2016). “Ridenour asserts that under R.C. 2929.61(A), none of his sentences should have been greater than 1 to 20 years and that they should have been imposed to run concurrently rather than consecutively.”
Ridenour v. Shoop (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 1313 (Ohio 2019). “{¶ 7} Ridenour relies on R.C. 2929.61(A) to argue that he should be sentenced in accordance with the lesser included charge of manslaughter, rather than second-degree murder.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.61(C) — 3 cases
State v. Jones, 506 N.E.2d 1187 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “In her first assignment of error, defendant takes exception to the judge’s ruling in this regard and argues that the trial court failed to comply with the sentencing procedures required by R.C. 2929.61(C). Specifically, defendant contends that R.”
State v. Ragland, 478 N.E.2d 1014 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “On the fourth degree felony of aggravated assault, the court neglected to inform defendant of his right to choose to be sentenced under the law in effect at the time the offense was committed, or the law in effect at the time of sentencing, per R.C. 2929.61(C). That section of…”
State v. Shinkle, 499 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “” 2 R.C. 2929.61(C) provides in part that: “* * * Persons convicted or sentenced on or after July 1, 1983, for an offense that is a felony of the third or fourth degree and that *55 was committed on or after January 1, 1974, and before July 1, 1983, shall be notified by the…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.61(D) — 2 cases
State v. McColloch, 603 N.E.2d 1106 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “However, pursuant to R.C. 2929.61(D), defendant should have been sentenced under the provisions of R.”
Swihart v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2014 Ohio 3305 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Furlough and Honor Status {¶ 29} Appellant contends that, pursuant to R.C. 2929.61(D) and 1.58, the laws in effect when he was convicted in 1977 must still be applied to him, and under those laws he has a right to furlough release.”
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.