Background
Ashton Packard pleaded guilty to fourth-degree-felony domestic violence after the State agreed to dismiss a strangulation charge. The charges arose from a December 2024 incident in which the victim reported that Packard attacked and choked her, leaving visible facial injuries. Packard was on post-release control in an earlier felonious-assault case at the time.
The trial court imposed 18 months in prison for domestic violence and a consecutive 12 months for the prior post-release-control violation. At sentencing, the court said Packard could receive up to two years of optional post-release control and could be punished for violations, but it did not orally explain the specific prison consequences. Although Packard’s plea agreement and sentencing entry described those consequences, he appealed the adequacy of the oral advisements.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District held that the trial court did not properly impose post-release control because its oral explanation at sentencing omitted required information about the consequences of violating supervision. The court was required to tell Packard that the Parole Board could return him to prison for up to 50% of his stated prison term and that committing a new felony while on post-release control could produce an additional consecutive term equal to the greater of one year or the time remaining on supervision.
The appellate court remanded for a new sentencing hearing limited to properly imposing post-release control. The remainder of Packard’s sentence was left undisturbed, and appellate costs were waived.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing court must orally explain whether post-release control is mandatory or discretionary, its duration, and the statutory consequences of violating it.
- General statements that supervision officials may punish a defendant do not adequately communicate the specific potential prison terms.
- An inadequate post-release-control advisement requires only a limited resentencing hearing; it does not disturb the otherwise valid portions of the sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that written notice in a plea agreement or sentencing entry does not replace the trial court’s duty to give complete post-release-control warnings orally at sentencing. Courts must state the applicable consequences with enough specificity to satisfy Ohio’s statutory notice requirements.