State v. Baldwin, Unpublished Decision (6-3-2004) , 2004 Ohio 2850 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  • {¶ 34} On this appeal from a conviction and sentence entered by Judge Nancy McDonnell, I concur in the judgment but write separately to note that the judge never informed Baldwin of the consequences of violating post-release control, as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(3) and R.C. 2943.032. The statutory requirements are mandatory, and notification of post-release control consequences is part of the duty to inform a defendant of his full sentence. In addition, compliance with the notice requirements is necessary to ensure that judges recognize the totality of sentencing factors when imposing a prison term.1 Without this express recognition, a reviewing court cannot tell whether a judge imposed a particular term with a complete appreciation of the additional burdens and consequences of post-release control.2

    {¶ 35} It would appear, therefore, that although Baldwin would be subject to post-release control following his stated prison term, the parole board will be unable to impose any prison term should he violate the supervision or a condition of such control, because the judge failed to inform him that additional prison time could be imposed as part of his sentence.3

    1 State v. Davis, Cuyahoga App. No. 83033, 2004-Ohio-1908, at ¶ 23-24. (Citations omitted.)

    2 Id.

    3 R.C. 2929.19(B)(3)(e).

Document Info

Docket Number: No. 83327.

Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 2850

Judges: MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.

Filed Date: 6/3/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021