Monday, October 15, 2012

Judge could not impose PRC conditions at sentencing (10 15 12)

The job of the trial judge when it comes to postrelease control, is to impose it. A judge must properly impose post-release control if it is to be effective. But a Brown County Judge went beyond that. The judge sentenced a defendant for gross sexual imposition (or GSI) of a child under thirteen years of age. The judge informed the defendant that he would be subject to PRC for a mandatory term of five years. But the judge also imposed, as a condition of PRC, that he "shall not obtain employment at, nor enter into any establishment or area where minors are likely to be present or employed. This includes but is not limited to, establishments and areas such as parks, playgrounds, schools, amusement parks, video arcades, pool halls, roller rinks, fast food restaurants, and other like facilities." It is improper for a trial judge to impose conditions on PRC. "The Adult Parole Authority has absolute discretion over matters concerning postrelease control." The trial judge lacked authority to impose conditions on PRC and so the Twelfth District Court of Appeals modified his sentence by removing the condition. State v. Hale, 2012-Ohio-4768.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Appellate Lawyer for your appeal or other postconviction matter by going to my Web site and filling in the "contact me" form.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.