(A) A court of common pleas may cooperate with the department of rehabilitation and correction in the supervision of offenders who return to the court's territorial jurisdiction after serving a prison term. The court, after consultation with the board of county commissioners, may enter into an agreement with the department allowing the court and the parole board to make joint decisions relating to parole and post-release control to the extent permitted by section 2967.28 of the Revised Code.
(B) An agreement made under this section shall include at least all of the following:
(1) The categories of offenders with regard to which the court may participate in making decisions;
(2) The process by which the offenders in each category will be identified;
(3) The process by which the court and the parole board will monitor offenders and make recommendations regarding programming while the offenders are in prison;
(4) The process by which the court will participate in setting appropriate sanctions and conditions on offenders who leave prison on post-release control or parole;
(5) The process by which the court may participate in reducing the duration of the period of post-release control;
(6) Guidelines for the supervision of offenders under post-release control or parole supervision;
(7) Guidelines for sanctions for violations of parole or post-release control;
(8) Provisions that take into account the perspective of affected victims.
(C) A court that enters into an agreement under this section shall provide the department of rehabilitation and correction with a presentence investigation upon the offender's admission to prison. The department shall provide the court with a summary of an offender's progress while in prison prior to the release of the offender.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2012–2023 · leading case:
State v. Anderson, 2016-Ohio-7044.
State v. Anderson, 2016-Ohio-7044.
· cites it 6× “This goal of allowing the court to set the appropriate sanctions and conditions on offenders leaving prison could have been accomplished in an authorized manner through the procedures outlined under R.C. 2967.29, which provides a method for the court of common pleas to cooperate…”
State v. Gray, 2022-Ohio-939.
· cites it 5× “” It is from this order that the state timely appeals, contending that Gray’s sentence is contrary to law because the trial court was not authorized under R.C. 2967.29 to impose a definite three-year term of postrelease control as part of Gray’s sentence.”
State v. Wright, 2021-Ohio-3818, 180 N.E.3d 32.
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 2967.29 of the Revised Code, a court of common pleas or parole board may impose sanctions or conditions on an offender who is placed on post-release control under this division.”
State v. Fryer, 2015-Ohio-4573, 48 N.E.3d 962.
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 2967.29 of the Revised Code, a court of common pleas or parole board may impose Perry County, Case No.”
State v. Heidrick, 2012-Ohio-1739.
“{¶12} Further, although defendant cites to R.C. 2967.29 in support of his argument, nothing in this code provision precludes the imposition of a blended sentence.”
State v. Horner, 2016-Ohio-7608.
· cites it 3× “State 1 We note that R.C. 2967.29 provides a method for the court of common pleas to cooperate with the department of rehabilitation and correction in supervising offenders under parole or postrelease control.”
State v. Renne, 2012-Ohio-3623.
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 2967.29 of the Revised Code, a court of common pleas or parole board may impose sanctions or conditions on an offender who is placed on post-release control under this division.”
Hogan v. Smith, No. 3:23-cv-00226 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 11, 2023).
· cites it 4× “5 This section of the statute provides in possibly relevant part: The parole board or, pursuant to an agreement under section 2967.29 of the Revised Code, the court may hold a hearing on any alleged violation by a releasee of a post-release control sanction or any conditions…”
Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2018-Ohio-4149.
“28(D)(3) (effective September 13, 2016) (providing that the parole board or, pursuant to an agreement under R.C. 2967.29, a court may hold a hearing on any alleged violation by a release of a post-release control sanction or any conditions described in R.”
State v. Miller, 2020-Ohio-1159.
“R.C. 2967.29(B)(1). The court imposed a five-year period of postrelease control on each count.”
State v. Smith, 2013-Ohio-3330.
· cites it 2× “28(D)(3) states the following in pertinent part: At any time after a prisoner is released from imprisonment and during the period of post-release control applicable to the releasee, the adult parole authority or, pursuant to an agreement under section 2967.29 of the Revised…”
State v. Gray, 2019-Ohio-3502.
“{¶ 17} The sentencing transcripts, and the corresponding sentencing entries, clearly reflect that the trial court did not impose consecutive terms of postrelease control, as suggested by appellant, and as prohibited by R.C. 2967.29(F)(4)(c). {¶ 18} On the contrary, the record…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2967.29(A): 2 cases
State v. Anderson, 2016-Ohio-7044.
“This goal of allowing the court to set the appropriate sanctions and conditions on offenders leaving prison could have been accomplished in an authorized manner through the procedures outlined under R.C. 2967.29, which provides a method for the court of common pleas to cooperate…”
State v. Horner, 2016-Ohio-7608.
“State 1 We note that R.C. 2967.29 provides a method for the court of common pleas to cooperate with the department of rehabilitation and correction in supervising offenders under parole or postrelease control.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2967.29(B): 2 cases
State v. Gray, 2022-Ohio-939.
“” It is from this order that the state timely appeals, contending that Gray’s sentence is contrary to law because the trial court was not authorized under R.C. 2967.29 to impose a definite three-year term of postrelease control as part of Gray’s sentence.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2967.29(B)(1): 1 case
State v. Miller, 2020-Ohio-1159.
“R.C. 2967.29(B)(1). The court imposed a five-year period of postrelease control on each count.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2967.29(B)(4): 1 case
State v. Anderson, 2016-Ohio-7044.
“This goal of allowing the court to set the appropriate sanctions and conditions on offenders leaving prison could have been accomplished in an authorized manner through the procedures outlined under R.C. 2967.29, which provides a method for the court of common pleas to cooperate…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2967.29(B)(6): 2 cases
State v. Anderson, 2016-Ohio-7044.
“This goal of allowing the court to set the appropriate sanctions and conditions on offenders leaving prison could have been accomplished in an authorized manner through the procedures outlined under R.C. 2967.29, which provides a method for the court of common pleas to cooperate…”
State v. Horner, 2016-Ohio-7608.
“State 1 We note that R.C. 2967.29 provides a method for the court of common pleas to cooperate with the department of rehabilitation and correction in supervising offenders under parole or postrelease control.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2967.29(F)(4)(c): 1 case
State v. Gray, 2019-Ohio-3502.
“{¶ 17} The sentencing transcripts, and the corresponding sentencing entries, clearly reflect that the trial court did not impose consecutive terms of postrelease control, as suggested by appellant, and as prohibited by R.C. 2967.29(F)(4)(c). {¶ 18} On the contrary, the record…”
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.