Background
Kevin Driver pleaded guilty to five fourth-degree-felony identity-fraud charges. His written plea agreement stated that, if imprisoned, he could be placed on discretionary post-release control for up to two years and could be returned to prison for violating its conditions. The trial court later imposed prison terms on all five counts.
At sentencing, the judge told Driver only that he faced up to two years of optional post-release control administered by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority. The judge did not orally explain that violating post-release-control conditions could result in an additional prison term of up to one-half of the definite prison term originally imposed. Although the sentencing entry included that information, Driver appealed the incomplete oral advisement.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District held that the post-release-control portion of Driver’s sentence was contrary to law. Under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f), a trial court must advise a defendant at the sentencing hearing that violating post-release-control conditions may lead to additional imprisonment and must identify the applicable maximum. The court concluded that Driver’s written plea form could not substitute for the required sentencing-hearing advisement because his plea and sentencing occurred on different days.
The sentencing entry likewise could not cure the deficient oral notice. The court reversed and remanded for a limited sentencing hearing at which Driver must be advised that a post-release-control violation could result in imprisonment for up to one-half of his original definite prison term. The remainder of his sentence remains undisturbed.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing court must orally advise a defendant of the potential additional prison term for violating post-release-control conditions.
- A written plea form or sentencing entry does not cure an incomplete advisement at a later sentencing hearing.
- The remedy is a limited resentencing hearing addressing the required post-release-control notice, not reconsideration of the entire sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Ohio’s post-release-control requirements demand proper notice during the sentencing hearing itself. Accurate information elsewhere in the record does not eliminate that statutory duty.
Trial judges imposing prison terms should expressly state whether post-release control is mandatory or discretionary, its duration, and the maximum additional imprisonment available for a violation. Failure to do so may require a limited remand even when the written sentencing documents are complete.