Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 5120
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 5120.032 (2026)

Intensive program prisons

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 16, 2009
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 1 - 128th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) No later than January 1, 1998, the department of rehabilitation and correction may develop and implement intensive program prisons for male and female prisoners other than prisoners described in division (B)(2) of this section. The intensive program prisons, if developed and implemented, shall include institutions at which imprisonment of the type described in division (B)(2)(a) of section 5120.031 of the Revised Code is provided and prisons that focus on educational achievement, vocational training, alcohol and other drug abuse treatment, community service and conservation work, and other intensive regimens or combinations of intensive regimens.

(B)(1)(a) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, if one or more intensive program prisons are established under this section, if an offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment under the custody of the department, if the sentencing court either recommends the prisoner for placement in an intensive program prison under this section or makes no recommendation on placement of the prisoner, and if the department determines that the prisoner is eligible for placement in an intensive program prison under this section, the department may place the prisoner in an intensive program prison established pursuant to division (A) of this section. If the sentencing court disapproves placement of the prisoner in an intensive program prison, the department shall not place the prisoner in any intensive program prison.

If the sentencing court recommends a prisoner for placement in an intensive program prison and if the department subsequently places the prisoner in the recommended prison, the department shall notify the court of the prisoner's placement in the recommended intensive program prison and shall include with the notice a brief description of the placement.

If the sentencing court recommends placement of a prisoner in an intensive program prison and the department for any reason does not subsequently place the prisoner in the recommended prison, the department shall send a notice to the court indicating why the prisoner was not placed in the recommended prison.

If the sentencing court does not make a recommendation on the placement of a prisoner in an intensive program prison and if the department determines that the prisoner is eligible for placement in a prison of that nature, the department shall screen the prisoner and determine if the prisoner is suited for the prison. If the prisoner is suited for an intensive program prison, at least three weeks prior to placing the prisoner in the prison, the department shall notify the sentencing court of the proposed placement of the prisoner in the intensive program prison and shall include with the notice a brief description of the placement. The court shall have ten days from receipt of the notice to disapprove the placement. If the sentencing court disapproves the placement, the department shall not proceed with it. If the sentencing court does not timely disapprove of the placement, the department may proceed with plans for it.

If the department determines that a prisoner is not eligible for placement in an intensive program prison, the department shall not place the prisoner in any intensive program prison.

(b) The department may reduce the stated prison term of a prisoner upon the prisoner's successful completion of a ninety-day period in an intensive program prison. A prisoner whose term has been so reduced shall be required to serve an intermediate, transitional type of detention followed by a release under post-release control sanctions or, in the alternative, shall be placed under post-release control sanctions, as described in division (B)(2)(b)(ii) of section 5120.031 of the Revised Code. In either case, the placement under post-release control sanctions shall be under terms set by the parole board in accordance with section 2967.28 of the Revised Code and shall be subject to the provisions of that section and section 2929.141 of the Revised Code with respect to a violation of any post-release control sanction.

(2) A prisoner who is in any of the following categories is not eligible to participate in an intensive program prison established pursuant to division (A) of this section:

(a) The prisoner is serving a prison term for aggravated murder, murder, or a felony of the first or second degree or a comparable offense under the law in effect prior to July 1, 1996, or the prisoner previously has been imprisoned for aggravated murder, murder, or a felony of the first or second degree or a comparable offense under the law in effect prior to July 1, 1996.

(b) The prisoner is serving a mandatory prison term, as defined in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.

(c) The prisoner is serving a prison term for a felony of the third, fourth, or fifth degree that either is a sex offense, an offense betraying public trust, or an offense in which the prisoner caused or attempted to cause actual physical harm to a person, the prisoner is serving a prison term for a comparable offense under the law in effect prior to July 1, 1996, or the prisoner previously has been imprisoned for an offense of that type or a comparable offense under the law in effect prior to July 1, 1996.

(d) The prisoner is serving a mandatory prison term in prison for a third or fourth degree felony OVI offense, as defined in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code, that was imposed pursuant to division (G)(2) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code.

(C) Upon the implementation of intensive program prisons pursuant to division (A) of this section, the department at all times shall maintain intensive program prisons sufficient in number to reduce the prison terms of at least three hundred fifty prisoners who are eligible for reduction of their stated prison terms as a result of their completion of a regimen in an intensive program prison under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: State v. Howard, 944 N.E.2d 258 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Howard, 944 N.E.2d 258 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010). · cites it 8× “” R.C. 5120.032. As noted by the Ohio Department of Correction and Rehabilitation: {¶ 12} “The ‘Second Chance to Change’ initiative is the newest phase in the Department’s development strategy for Intensive Program Prisons (IPP’s).”
State v. Allender, 2012-Ohio-2963. · cites it 7× “” R.C. 5120.032. As 8 noted by the Ohio Department of Correction and Rehabilitation: “The ‘Second Chance to Change’ initiative is the newest phase in the Department's development strategy for Intensive Program Prisons (IPP's).”
State ex rel. Roberts v. Winkler, 893 N.E.2d 534 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2008). · cites it 12× “The gravamen of Roberts’s argument is that Judge Winkler lacks both the authority and the subject-matter jurisdiction to return him to prison, because he has served *691 his sentence, as modified by the ODRC pursuant to R.C. 5120.032, and therefore he may not be resentenced.”
State v. DeWitt, 2012-Ohio-635. · cites it 3× “031 of the Revised Code or an intensive program prison under section 5120.032 of the Revised Code, disapprove placement of the offender in a program or prison of that nature, or make no recommendation.”
State v. Berry, 2014-Ohio-132. · cites it 4× “{¶ 43} The State does not challenge Berry’s eligibility for IPP under R.C. 5120.032. Instead, the State contends that the trial court provided a sufficient factual basis for its decision.”
State v. Blessing, 2013-Ohio-392. · cites it 3× “031 of the Revised Code or an intensive program prison under section 5120.032 of the Revised Code, disapprove placement of the offender in a program or prison of that nature, or make no recommendation.”
State v. Swayne, 2013-Ohio-3747. · cites it 3× “19(D) states: The sentencing court * * * may recommend placement of the offender in * * * an intensive program prison under section 5120.032 of the Revised Code, disapprove placement of the offender in a program or prison of that nature, or make no recommendation.”
State v. Black, 30 N.E.3d 918 (Ohio 2015). “For example, pursuant to R.C. 5120.032(A), the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”) is authorized to develop and implement “intensive program prisons” that “focus on educational achievement, vocational training, alcohol and other drug abuse treatment,…”
State v. White, 2020-Ohio-5544. “The court correctly stated that the prison term was mandatory, pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(F). Because White was previously imprisoned for a felony of the first degree, the trial court correctly stated that White was not eligible for shock incarceration or intensive program prison.”
State v. Jones, 2016-Ohio-688. “19(D), as there was no indication that Jones had been rendered ineligible for intensive program prisons under R.C. 5120.032. Id. at  28. Accordingly, this court remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing.”
State v. Griffie, 2011-Ohio-6704. · cites it 3× “031 of the Revised Code or an intensive program prison under section 5120.032 of the Revised Code, disapprove placement of the offender in a program or prison of that nature, or make no recommendation.”
State v. Lux, 2012-Ohio-112. “Unless a releasee’s stated prison term was reduced pursuant to R.C. 5120.032, “the period of a prison term that is imposed as a post-release control sanction under this division shall not exceed nine months, and the maximum cumulative prison term for all violations under this…”
Show all 53 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 5120.032(A): 7 cases
State v. Black, 30 N.E.3d 918 (Ohio 2015). “For example, pursuant to R.C. 5120.032(A), the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”) is authorized to develop and implement “intensive program prisons” that “focus on educational achievement, vocational training, alcohol and other drug abuse treatment,…”
State ex rel. Roberts v. Winkler, 893 N.E.2d 534 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2008). “The gravamen of Roberts’s argument is that Judge Winkler lacks both the authority and the subject-matter jurisdiction to return him to prison, because he has served *691 his sentence, as modified by the ODRC pursuant to R.C. 5120.032, and therefore he may not be resentenced.”
State v. Jones, 2014-Ohio-1634.
State v. Michalewicz, 2015-Ohio-5142.
State v. Jones, 2014-Ohio-382.
Ohio Rev. Code § 5120.032(B): 2 cases
State ex rel. Roberts v. Winkler, 893 N.E.2d 534 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2008). “The gravamen of Roberts’s argument is that Judge Winkler lacks both the authority and the subject-matter jurisdiction to return him to prison, because he has served *691 his sentence, as modified by the ODRC pursuant to R.C. 5120.032, and therefore he may not be resentenced.”
State v. Milton, 2019-Ohio-3900.
Ohio Rev. Code § 5120.032(B)(1)(a): 6 cases
State ex rel. Roberts v. Winkler, 893 N.E.2d 534 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2008). “The gravamen of Roberts’s argument is that Judge Winkler lacks both the authority and the subject-matter jurisdiction to return him to prison, because he has served *691 his sentence, as modified by the ODRC pursuant to R.C. 5120.032, and therefore he may not be resentenced.”
State v. Livingston, 2014-Ohio-1637, 9 N.E.3d 1117.
State v. Roberts, 904 N.E.2d 945 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2008).
Kempf v. State, 910 N.E.2d 59 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2009).
State v. Roberts, 2009-Ohio-5800, 123 Ohio St. 3d 465.
Ohio Rev. Code § 5120.032(B)(1)(b): 4 cases
State ex rel. Roberts v. Winkler, 893 N.E.2d 534 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2008). “The gravamen of Roberts’s argument is that Judge Winkler lacks both the authority and the subject-matter jurisdiction to return him to prison, because he has served *691 his sentence, as modified by the ODRC pursuant to R.C. 5120.032, and therefore he may not be resentenced.”
Kempf v. State, 910 N.E.2d 59 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2009).
State v. Roberts, 2009-Ohio-5800, 123 Ohio St. 3d 465.
State v. Roberts, 904 N.E.2d 945 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2008).
Ohio Rev. Code § 5120.032(B)(2): 10 cases
State v. Blessing, 2013-Ohio-392. “031 of the Revised Code or an intensive program prison under section 5120.032 of the Revised Code, disapprove placement of the offender in a program or prison of that nature, or make no recommendation.”
State v. Berry, 2014-Ohio-132. “{¶ 43} The State does not challenge Berry’s eligibility for IPP under R.C. 5120.032. Instead, the State contends that the trial court provided a sufficient factual basis for its decision.”
State v. Swayne, 2013-Ohio-3747. “19(D) states: The sentencing court * * * may recommend placement of the offender in * * * an intensive program prison under section 5120.032 of the Revised Code, disapprove placement of the offender in a program or prison of that nature, or make no recommendation.”
State v. Barron, 2012-Ohio-5787.
State v. Cleveland, 2011-Ohio-4868.
Ohio Rev. Code § 5120.032(B)(2)(a): 15 cases
State v. White, 2020-Ohio-5544. “The court correctly stated that the prison term was mandatory, pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(F). Because White was previously imprisoned for a felony of the first degree, the trial court correctly stated that White was not eligible for shock incarceration or intensive program prison.”
State v. DeWitt, 2012-Ohio-635. “031 of the Revised Code or an intensive program prison under section 5120.032 of the Revised Code, disapprove placement of the offender in a program or prison of that nature, or make no recommendation.”
State v. Walz, 2012-Ohio-4627.
State v. Cleveland, 2011-Ohio-4868.
State v. Porcher, 2011-Ohio-5976.
Ohio Rev. Code § 5120.032(B)(2)(b): 1 case
State v. Cornell, 2020-Ohio-1305.
Ohio Rev. Code § 5120.032(B)(2)(c): 4 cases
State v. Howard, 944 N.E.2d 258 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010). “” R.C. 5120.032. As noted by the Ohio Department of Correction and Rehabilitation: {¶ 12} “The ‘Second Chance to Change’ initiative is the newest phase in the Department’s development strategy for Intensive Program Prisons (IPP’s).”
State v. Snyder, 2013-Ohio-2046.
State v. Turner, 2016-Ohio-3325.
State v. Music, 2015-Ohio-3162.
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.