A community control sanction continues for the period that the judge or magistrate determines and, subject to the five-year limit specified in section 2929.15 or 2929.25 of the Revised Code, may be extended. If the offender under community control absconds or otherwise leaves the jurisdiction of the court without permission from the probation officer, the probation agency, or the court to do so, or if the offender is confined in any institution for the commission of any offense, the period of community control ceases to run until the time that the offender is brought before the court for its further action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: State v. Anderson, 2016 Ohio 7044 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Anderson, 2016 Ohio 7044 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12ד{¶23} Finally, although not relevant, we note that any reliance on R.C. 2951.07 and 2929.141 to support the trial court’s authority to impose consecutive community control sanctions would be misplaced.”
State v. Rue (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6706 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 7ד3 {¶ 26} For its part, the state relies on R.C. 2951.07, which contains similar tolling language.”
State v. Mize, 2018 Ohio 3848 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 46דThe amended version of R.C. 2951.07 is therefore fully applicable, as is R.”
Davis v. Wolfe, 2001 Ohio 1281 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 6דMore specifically, Wolfe contends that Davis’s probationary 2 January Term, 2001 period was tolled by R.C. 2951.07 and the common pleas court, that Davis invited any error by requesting that the period be tolled, and that Davis has an adequate legal remedy by appeal.”
State v. Zucal, 694 N.E.2d 1341 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 8דHutchinson appealed to the Stark County Court of Appeals, challenging, among other things, the delay in execution of her jail sentence.”
State v. Fanti, 768 N.E.2d 718 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8ד{¶ 9} The state in response urges the applicability of R.C. 2951.07, which reads: {¶ 10} “* * * If the probationer absconds or otherwise absents himself or herself from the jurisdiction of the court without permission from the county *30 department of probation or the court to…”
State v. Griffin, 723 N.E.2d 606 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 5ד” The court stated in the order that it was tolling the community control under the authority of R.C. 2951.07. Apparently, the court was relying on a portion of R.”
Davis v. Wolfe, 751 N.E.2d 1051 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 5דMore specifically, Wolfe contends that Davis’s probationary period was tolled by R.C. 2951.07 and the common pleas court, that Davis invited any error by requesting that the period be tolled, and that Davis has an adequate legal remedy by appeal.”
In re Townsend, 554 N.E.2d 1336 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 6דWe decide today that *137 the term “absconds,” as used in R.C. 2951.07, can include a probationer who willfully fails to report to his probation officer even though he may have remained within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.”
State v. Washington, 2015 Ohio 305 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4ד{¶17} If the conditions of a community control sanction are violated or the offender violates the law, the sentencing court may order “[a] longer time under the same sanction if the total time under the sanctions does not exceed the [specified] five-year limit,” a more…”
State v. Zucal, 1998 Ohio 377 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 8דHutchinson appealed to the Stark County Court of Appeals, challenging, among other things, the delay in execution of her jail sentence.”
State v. Simpson, 440 N.E.2d 617 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3דR.C. 2951.07. The statute however is silent on the procedures to be followed in effecting an extension of a probationary period.”
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.