State v. Collier, 2021 Ohio 3203

Collier was indicted on multiple theft, forgery, and money-laundering counts arising from misappropriation while an office manager. She pleaded guilty to a subset of counts and agreed with the state to a concurrent three-year prison sentence and restitution.
On resentencing after an earlier appeal, the parties and the sentencing judge stated on the record that the three-year term was an agreed sentence; the journal entry did not explicitly say so or mention credit for time served.
The case was later transferred to the REEC (re-entry) docket; Collier filed for judicial release, asserting she was serving a nonmandatory 36-month term and therefore eligible.
The state opposed judicial release, arguing the parties’ agreement effectively created a mandatory three-year sentence that precluded judicial release.
The REEC judge denied Collier’s motion, finding the agreed sentence made her ineligible for judicial release. Collier appealed, arguing the state breached the sentencing agreement; the appellate court found merit and reversed and remanded for a new judicial-release hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state breached the sentencing agreement by arguing the agreed 3-year term was mandatory, making Collier ineligible for judicial release	The agreement should be read to require Collier to serve the full three years (i.e., was effectively mandatory), so opposing judicial release was consistent with the bargain	The agreement was only for a concurrent three-year sentence; it did not include a condition making the term mandatory or barring judicial release, and the state breached by asserting otherwise	Court held the state breached the agreement by arguing the sentence was mandatory; mandatory status was not placed on the record; reversed and remanded for new judicial-release hearing
Whether denial of judicial release amounted to an unlawful de facto modification of Collier’s sentence	Implicitly, the state maintained denial was proper and did not unlawfully alter the agreed sentence	Collier argued the court’s denial modified her agreed sentence contrary to law	Court rejected Collier’s second assignment: denial of judicial release is a discretionary decision, not a modification of the underlying sentence; assignment overruled

Butts v. State, 112 Ohio App.3d 683 (8th Dist. 1996) (sentencing agreements treated like contracts and akin to plea agreements)
Spercel v. Sterling Industries, 31 Ohio St.2d 36 (Ohio 1972) (settlement agreements constitute binding contracts)
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979) (no inherent right to conditional release before sentence expiration)
State ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt, 69 Ohio St.3d 123 (Ohio 1994) (judicial release is not a constitutional entitlement)
State v. Ware, 141 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 2014) (judicial release is a discretionary privilege, not an entitlement)