Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 5120.021 (2026)

Application of chapter

✓ 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) The provisions of Chapter 5120. of the Revised Code, as they existed prior to July 1, 1996, and that address the duration or potential duration of incarceration or parole or other forms of supervised release, apply to all persons upon whom a court imposed a term of imprisonment prior to July 1, 1996, and all persons upon whom a court, on or after July 1, 1996, and in accordance with law existing prior to July 1, 1996, imposed a term of imprisonment for an offense that was committed prior to July 1, 1996.

(B)(1) The provisions of Chapter 5120. of the Revised Code, as they exist on or after July 1, 1996, and that address the duration or potential duration of incarceration or supervised release, apply to all persons upon whom a court imposed a stated prison term for an offense committed on or after July 1, 1996.

(2) The provisions of Chapter 5120. of the Revised Code, as they exist on or after the effective date of this amendment, apply to an offender who is released from confinement in a state correctional institution on or after that date.

(C) Nothing in this section limits or affects the applicability of any provision in Chapter 5120. of the Revised Code, as amended or enacted on or after July 1, 1996, that pertains to an issue other than the duration or potential duration of incarceration or supervised release, to persons in custody or under the supervision of the department of rehabilitation and correction.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Bailey v. Carter, 15 F. App'x 245 (6th Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bailey v. Carter, 15 F. App'x 245 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “As part of their Fourteenth Amendment claim, the inmates alleged that the statute and rule violate due process by infringing upon the rights created by Ohio’s nondelegation doctrine, Ohio Rev.”

Michael v. Ghee, 498 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2007). “Ohio Rev.Code § 5120.021(A). In 1998, the OAPA adopted guidelines designed to guide the discretion of parole officers making release determinations for Ohio inmates sentenced prior to July 1, 1996.”

Poland v. Ohio Parole Bd., 2023 Ohio 694 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 15× “of the Revised Code, as they existed prior to July 1, 1996, and that address the duration or potential duration of incarceration or parole or other forms of supervised release, apply to all persons upon whom a court imposed a term of imprisonment Richland County, Case No.”

Richard v. Ohio Parole Bd., 2022 Ohio 2762 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN DENYING APPELLANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO ALLOW APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO, INTER ALIA, INTERROGATE JUDGE NAUMOFF, OR OTHER EXPERT PAROLE WITNESS, TO FULLY EXAMINE R.C. 5120.021(A)…”

Richard v. Mohr (S.D. Ohio 2019). “Code §5120.021. This action was dismissed on March 5, 2014, for failure to state a claim.”

Hill (N.D. Ohio 2025). “101 is expressly not retroactive, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §5120.021, and cannot be used to issue a court order prohibiting release on parole for a prisoner convicted prior to 1996.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 5120.021(A) — 4 cases

Michael v. Ghee, 498 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2007). “Ohio Rev.Code § 5120.021(A). In 1998, the OAPA adopted guidelines designed to guide the discretion of parole officers making release determinations for Ohio inmates sentenced prior to July 1, 1996.”

Bailey v. Carter, 15 F. App'x 245 (6th Cir. 2001). “As part of their Fourteenth Amendment claim, the inmates alleged that the statute and rule violate due process by infringing upon the rights created by Ohio’s nondelegation doctrine, Ohio Rev.”

Poland v. Ohio Parole Bd., 2023 Ohio 694 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “of the Revised Code, as they existed prior to July 1, 1996, and that address the duration or potential duration of incarceration or parole or other forms of supervised release, apply to all persons upon whom a court imposed a term of imprisonment Richland County, Case No.”

Richard v. Ohio Parole Bd., 2022 Ohio 2762 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN DENYING APPELLANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO ALLOW APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO, INTER ALIA, INTERROGATE JUDGE NAUMOFF, OR OTHER EXPERT PAROLE WITNESS, TO FULLY EXAMINE R.C. 5120.021(A)…”

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.