Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2935
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.36 (2026)

Pre-trial diversion programs

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) The prosecuting attorney may establish pre-trial diversion programs for adults who are accused of committing criminal offenses and whom the prosecuting attorney believes probably will not offend again. The prosecuting attorney may require, as a condition of an accused's participation in the program, the accused to pay a reasonable fee for supervision services that include, but are not limited to, monitoring and drug testing. The programs shall be operated pursuant to written standards approved by journal entry by the presiding judge or, in courts with only one judge, the judge of the court of common pleas and shall not be applicable to any of the following:

(1) Repeat offenders or dangerous offenders;

(2) Persons accused of an offense of violence, of a violation of section 2903.06, 2907.04, 2907.05, 2907.21, 2907.22, 2907.31, 2907.32, 2907.34, 2911.31, 2919.12, 2919.13, 2919.22, 2921.02, 2921.11, 2921.12, 2921.32, or 2923.20 of the Revised Code, or of a violation of section 2905.01, 2905.02, or 2919.23 of the Revised Code that, had it occurred prior to July 1, 1996, would have been a violation of section 2905.04 of the Revised Code as it existed prior to that date, with the exception that the prosecuting attorney may permit persons accused of any such offense to enter a pre-trial diversion program, if the prosecuting attorney finds any of the following:

(a) The accused did not cause, threaten, or intend serious physical harm to any person;

(b) The offense was the result of circumstances not likely to recur;

(c) The accused has no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity;

(d) The accused has led a law-abiding life for a substantial time before commission of the alleged offense;

(e) Substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the alleged offense.

(3) Persons accused of a violation of Chapter 2925. or 3719. of the Revised Code, with the exception that the prosecuting attorney may permit persons accused of any of the following to enter a pre-trial diversion program:

(a) A misdemeanor, fifth degree felony, or fourth degree felony violation of section 2925.11 of the Revised Code;

(b) A misdemeanor violation of section 2925.12, 2925.13, or division (C)(1) of section 2925.14 of the Revised Code.

(4) Persons accused of a violation of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code or a violation of any substantially similar municipal ordinance;

(5)(a) Persons who are accused of an offense while operating a commercial motor vehicle or persons who hold a commercial driver's license and are accused of any offense, if conviction of the offense would disqualify the person from operating a commercial motor vehicle under Chapter 4506. of the Revised Code or would subject the person to any other sanction under that chapter;

(b) As used in division (A)(5) of this section, "commercial driver's license" and "commercial motor vehicle" have the same meanings as in section 4506.01 of the Revised Code.

(B) An accused who enters a diversion program shall do all of the following:

(1) Waive, in writing and contingent upon the accused's successful completion of the program, the accused's right to a speedy trial, the preliminary hearing, the time period within which the grand jury may consider an indictment against the accused, and arraignment, unless the hearing, indictment, or arraignment has already occurred;

(2) Agree, in writing, to the tolling while in the program of all periods of limitation established by statutes or rules of court, that are applicable to the offense with which the accused is charged and to the conditions of the diversion program established by the prosecuting attorney;

(3) Agree, in writing, to pay any reasonable fee for supervision services established by the prosecuting attorney.

(C) The trial court, upon the application of the prosecuting attorney, shall order the release from confinement of any accused who has agreed to enter a pre-trial diversion program and shall discharge and release any existing bail and release any sureties on recognizances and shall release the accused on a recognizance bond conditioned upon the accused's compliance with the terms of the diversion program. The prosecuting attorney shall notify every victim of the crime and the arresting officers of the prosecuting attorney's intent to permit the accused to enter a pre-trial diversion program. The victim of the crime and the arresting officers shall have the opportunity to file written objections with the prosecuting attorney prior to the commencement of the pre-trial diversion program.

(D) If the accused satisfactorily completes the diversion program, the prosecuting attorney shall recommend to the trial court that the charges against the accused be dismissed, and the court, upon the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney, shall dismiss the charges. If the accused chooses not to enter the prosecuting attorney's diversion program, or if the accused violates the conditions of the agreement pursuant to which the accused has been released, the accused may be brought to trial upon the charges in the manner provided by law, and the waiver executed pursuant to division (B)(1) of this section shall be void on the date the accused is removed from the program for the violation.

(E) As used in this section:

(1) "Repeat offender" means a person who has a history of persistent criminal activity and whose character and condition reveal a substantial risk that the person will commit another offense. It is prima-facie evidence that a person is a repeat offender if any of the following applies:

(a) Having been convicted of one or more offenses of violence and having been imprisoned pursuant to sentence for any such offense, the person commits a subsequent offense of violence;

(b) Having been convicted of one or more sexually oriented offenses or child-victim oriented offenses, both as defined in section 2950.01 of the Revised Code, and having been imprisoned pursuant to sentence for one or more of those offenses, the person commits a subsequent sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense;

(c) Having been convicted of one or more theft offenses as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code and having been imprisoned pursuant to sentence for one or more of those theft offenses, the person commits a subsequent theft offense;

(d) Having been convicted of one or more felony drug abuse offenses as defined in section 2925.01 of the Revised Code and having been imprisoned pursuant to sentence for one or more of those felony drug abuse offenses, the person commits a subsequent felony drug abuse offense;

(e) Having been convicted of two or more felonies and having been imprisoned pursuant to sentence for one or more felonies, the person commits a subsequent offense;

(f) Having been convicted of three or more offenses of any type or degree other than traffic offenses, alcoholic intoxication offenses, or minor misdemeanors and having been imprisoned pursuant to sentence for any such offense, the person commits a subsequent offense.

(2) "Dangerous offender" means a person who has committed an offense, whose history, character, and condition reveal a substantial risk that the person will be a danger to others, and whose conduct has been characterized by a pattern of repetitive, compulsive, or aggressive behavior with heedless indifference to the consequences.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: City of Akron v. Frazier, 756 N.E.2d 1258 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Akron v. Frazier, 756 N.E.2d 1258 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “ny other person named in the application, for any purpose; “(2) To a law enforcement officer who was involved in the case, for use in the officer’s defense of a civil action arising out of the officer’s involvement in that case; “(3) To a prosecuting attorney or his assistants…”
State v. Urvan, 446 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “Defendant was placed in a pretrial diversion program authorized under R.C. 2935.36. 3 B The Medina County first offender diversion program was headed by Dr.”
State v. Dopart, 2014 Ohio 2901 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “The trial court has labeled it as such, and it functions in a manner similar to a pretrial diversion program that may be operated by a prosecutor’s office pursuant to R.C. 2935.36. {¶6} The characterization of the program is significant given that the trial court purportedly…”
State v. Kona (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7796 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 4× “The entry read: In accordance with the provisions of R.C. 2935.36, the prosecutor’s office has found that the defendant has met eligibility requirements for acceptance into the Cuyahoga County pretrial diversion program.”
State v. Mintz, 598 N.E.2d 52 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “R.C. 2935.36 governs pre-trial diversion programs such as the Domestic Violence Diversion Program involved in this case.”
City of Cleveland v. Mosquito, 461 N.E.2d 924 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 5× “Effective June 6, 1978, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2935.36 authorizing prosecuting attorneys to establish pretrial diversion programs for certain offenders.”
State v. Davis, 2013 Ohio 3966 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “In Ohio, the General Assembly has given that authority to prosecuting attorneys by virtue of the enactment of R.C. 2935.36, which states “[t]he prosecuting attorney may establish pre-trial diversion programs for adults who are accused of committing criminal offenses and whom the…”
State v. Curry, 730 N.E.2d 435 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “Defendant has asserted that, because the trial court did have the authority to determine whether he had met the requirements of the diversion program, the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.”
State v. A.S., 2022 Ohio 3833 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “eligible for diversion, the trial court ordered her to participate for six months in the Hamilton County Diversion Program established in accordance with R.C. 2935.36. In conjunction with this order, A.”
State v. Newberry, 603 N.E.2d 1086 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “Appellants jointly assign the following error for review: “Admission to a prosecutor’s diversion program authorized by R.C. 2935.36 is a benefit entitled to protection by due process under the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United…”
State v. Tekulve, 936 N.E.2d 1030 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “In his single assignment of error, Tekulve claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion when his appointed trial counsel had refused to prepare a defense and had failed to warn him that his theft conviction would necessitate Tekulve’s removal from an R.C. 2935.36…”
State v. Leisten, 853 N.E.2d 673 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Compare R.C. 2935.36 (pretrial diversion programs) with R.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.36(A) — 11 cases
State v. Urvan, 446 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “Defendant was placed in a pretrial diversion program authorized under R.C. 2935.36. 3 B The Medina County first offender diversion program was headed by Dr.”
City of Cleveland v. Mosquito, 461 N.E.2d 924 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). “Effective June 6, 1978, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2935.36 authorizing prosecuting attorneys to establish pretrial diversion programs for certain offenders.”
State v. Newberry, 603 N.E.2d 1086 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “Appellants jointly assign the following error for review: “Admission to a prosecutor’s diversion program authorized by R.C. 2935.36 is a benefit entitled to protection by due process under the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United…”
State v. J.B., 2025 Ohio 3143 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Curry, 730 N.E.2d 435 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). “Defendant has asserted that, because the trial court did have the authority to determine whether he had met the requirements of the diversion program, the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.36(A)(1) — 1 case
State v. Bielfelt, 2024 Ohio 5055 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.36(A)(4) — 1 case
State v. Leisten, 853 N.E.2d 673 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). “Compare R.C. 2935.36 (pretrial diversion programs) with R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.36(A)(5) — 1 case
State v. Radich, 616 N.E.2d 1189 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.36(B) — 3 cases
State v. Urvan, 446 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “Defendant was placed in a pretrial diversion program authorized under R.C. 2935.36. 3 B The Medina County first offender diversion program was headed by Dr.”
Cleveland v. McCruel, 2017 Ohio 182 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Kona, 2014 Ohio 1242 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.36(B)(1) — 1 case
State v. Mintz, 598 N.E.2d 52 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “R.C. 2935.36 governs pre-trial diversion programs such as the Domestic Violence Diversion Program involved in this case.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.36(C) — 4 cases
State v. Urvan, 446 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “Defendant was placed in a pretrial diversion program authorized under R.C. 2935.36. 3 B The Medina County first offender diversion program was headed by Dr.”
State v. Mintz, 598 N.E.2d 52 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “R.C. 2935.36 governs pre-trial diversion programs such as the Domestic Violence Diversion Program involved in this case.”
State v. Bielfelt, 2024 Ohio 5055 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Kona, 2014 Ohio 1242 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.36(D) — 9 cases
State v. Curry, 730 N.E.2d 435 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). “Defendant has asserted that, because the trial court did have the authority to determine whether he had met the requirements of the diversion program, the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.”
State v. Mintz, 598 N.E.2d 52 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “R.C. 2935.36 governs pre-trial diversion programs such as the Domestic Violence Diversion Program involved in this case.”
State v. Urvan, 446 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “Defendant was placed in a pretrial diversion program authorized under R.C. 2935.36. 3 B The Medina County first offender diversion program was headed by Dr.”
State v. Scoles, 2018 Ohio 1149 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Cleveland v. McCruel, 2017 Ohio 182 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.36(F) — 1 case
State v. Bielfelt, 2024 Ohio 5055 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
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.