State v. Russell, 2025-Ohio-2612
Case Information
Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio Second Appellate District Montgomery County
Date: 2025-07-25
Citation: 2025-Ohio-2612
Read the Opinion
Summary
Summary: The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for aggravated possession of methamphetamine, holding that the trial court properly advised the Defendant of post-release control during sentencing. The case clarifies compliance with statutory requirements for notifying offenders about post-release control.
Key Holdings:
Key Holdings
- A trial court must notify the offender at the sentencing hearing of the discretionary nature and potential consequences of post-release control
- Failure to orally notify a defendant of post-release control during sentencing renders that part of the sentence contrary to law
- For third-degree felonies not subject to mandatory post-release control the court must advise the offender that post-release control is optional for up to two years
- A court must inform the offender that violation of post-release control can result in a prison term of up to half the original sentence
More Information
The Defendant was indicted on multiple charges in 2023, including having weapons while under disability and obstructing official business. In September 2024, the Defendant was charged via bill of information with aggravated possession of methamphetamine and later pleaded guilty in February 2025 in exchange for the dismissal of the original charges. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to 30 months in prison and advised him of a non-mandatory post-release control period.
On appeal, the Defendant argued that the trial court failed to impose post-release control orally during sentencing, making that portion of the sentence invalid. However, the appellate court reviewed the record and concluded that the trial court did provide the necessary advisements both during the sentencing hearing and in the written judgment.
The court noted that under R.C. 2967.28(C), post-release control for third-degree felonies like the Defendant’s offense is discretionary and can be imposed for up to two years. The trial court complied with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) by advising the Defendant that violation of post-release control could result in a prison term of up to one-half the original sentence.
The appellate court distinguished this case from prior precedent where such advisements were omitted at sentencing, affirming that the trial court in this case met all statutory obligations. The Defendant’s sole assignment of error was therefore overruled, and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.