State v. Burns, 2021 Ohio 3667

In 2004 William M. Burns pled guilty to multiple violent felonies (including aggravated burglary, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, felonious assault) and received an aggregate 20-year sentence.
Burns filed motions for judicial release in 2014, 2015, and 2019 (all denied); he filed again in April 2020 after serving 16 years, citing COVID-19 and rehabilitation.
The trial court found Burns eligible under R.C. 2929.20, held a virtual hearing (Burns appeared by phone), heard victim-family opposition, and considered rehabilitation programming, remorse, and security classification.
The trial court concluded the R.C. 2929.20(J)(1)(a) and (b) findings were met: factors showing lesser likelihood of recidivism outweighed those showing greater likelihood, and a non-prison sanction would not demean the offenses. It suspended the sentence and imposed two years community control.
The State appealed under R.C. 2953.08(B)(3), arguing the record did not clearly and convincingly support the R.C. 2929.20 findings and that the trial court failed to fully articulate its rationale.
The Ninth District applied the deferential R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard, concluded the trial court made the required oral and written findings and relied on evidence in the record, and affirmed; a judge dissented, arguing the court failed to explain why it reversed its 2019 denial.

Issue	State's Argument	Burns' Argument	Held
Whether the grant of judicial release complied with R.C. 2929.20 and was supported by the record	The record lacks clear-and-convincing support for the R.C. 2929.20(J) findings and the court failed to fully articulate its rationale	Trial court complied with R.C. 2929.20, considered R.C. 2929.12 factors and other permissible evidence showing rehabilitation and low recidivism risk	Affirmed: appellate court could not clearly and convincingly find the record lacked evidence to support the trial court’s R.C. 2929.20(J)(1)(a) and (b) findings; trial court’s oral and journal-entry findings were sufficient

State ex rel. Lichtenwalter v. DeWine, 158 Ohio St.3d 1476 (2020) (trial courts may liberally and expeditiously grant appropriate judicial-release requests)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard)