Background
Joshua A. Shannon pleaded guilty to second-degree-felony aggravated possession of drugs and an accompanying firearm specification. The remaining charges and specifications were dismissed. The Knox County Court of Common Pleas imposed a mandatory indefinite term of four to six years for aggravated possession and a consecutive mandatory one-year term for the firearm specification, producing an aggregate mandatory sentence of five to six years.
Shannon later moved pro se to correct the sentencing entry, asking the court to instruct the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction that he was eligible for earned reduction of minimum prison term, or ERMPT, based on exceptional conduct or adjustment to incarceration. The trial court denied the motion because Shannon was serving mandatory terms, and Shannon appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. Relying on its decision in State v. Wright, 2026-Ohio-1714, the court held that ERMPT does not apply to mandatory prison terms. Ohio Revised Code 2929.13(F) requires certain prison terms to be imposed and served and prohibits their reduction through provisions in Chapter 2967 unless the legislature expressly provides an exception.
Because ERMPT is codified in R.C. 2967.271(F), it falls within the statutory prohibition. The court concluded that R.C. 2929.13(F) and R.C. 2967.271(F) operate together without conflict: ERMPT provides a general reduction mechanism only for sentences that are legally reducible, while mandatory terms are excluded. The trial court therefore correctly found Shannon ineligible and denied his motion.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio’s ERMPT program does not permit a reduction of a mandatory prison term.
- R.C. 2929.13(F) bars reductions under Chapter 2967 unless the General Assembly expressly creates an exception.
- The absence of an express mandatory-term exclusion in R.C. 2967.271 does not override R.C. 2929.13(F).
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Fifth District’s reading of Ohio’s sentencing statutes after State v. Wright: exceptional conduct or adjustment to incarceration cannot make an offender eligible for ERMPT when the prison term is mandatory.
For sentencing and postconviction practitioners, the opinion underscores that ERMPT eligibility depends first on whether the sentence is legally reducible. Courts will not infer an exception allowing ERMPT to shorten mandatory terms when the legislature has not expressly enacted one.