State v. DayState v. Day
Rendered on January 19, 2010
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Barbara A. Farnbacher, for appellant.
Yeura R. Venters, Public Defender, and David L. Strait, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
CONNOR, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, the State of Ohio (“State“), appeals the decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to grant judicial release to defendant-appellee, Jarel Day (“defendant“). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court‘s decision to grant judicial release.
{¶2} The facts underlying this matter concern defendant‘s participation in a robbery that occurred shortly after midnight on Christmas Eve 2005. At the time of the
{¶3} On March 10, 2006, a grand jury indicted defendant on one count of aggravated robbery with a firearm specificatiоn, a violation of
{¶4} On September 26, 2006, defendant entered a guilty plea to Count 2 of the indictment, to wit: robbery with a firearm specification in violation of
{¶5} On June 20, 2008, defendant filed his first motion for judicial release, which the State opposed. The trial court denied defendant‘s first motion by entry on August 15, 2008.
{¶6} On Oсtober 28, 2008, defendant filed his second motion for judicial release. The State opposed the motion due to the defendant‘s lack of remorse, the cruel nature of the offense, the impact the crime had on the victim, and defendant‘s misconduct while in prison.
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
The trial court erred when it granted the motion for judicial release without articulating the requisite factors supporting its dеcision.
R.C. 2929.20(H) .SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
The trial court abused its discretion when it granted the defendant‘s motion for judicial release.
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
The trial court erred when it failed to make the defendant‘s institutional summary report part of the record of the judicial release hearing, in contravention of
R.C. 2929.20(E) and(G) .
{¶8} Because assignments of error one and three present the issue of whether the trial court properly complied with the statutory requirements before granting judicial release, we will analyze these assignments of error together.
{¶9} With regard to the statutory requirements, former
(E) Prior to the date of the hearing on a motion for judicial release under this sectiоn, the head of the state correctional institution in which the eligible offender in question is confined shall send to the court a report on the eligible offender‘s conduct in the institution and in any institution from which the eligible offender may have been transferred. The report shall cover the eligible offender‘s participation in school, vocational training, work, treatment, and other rehabilitative activities and any disciplinary action takеn against the eligible offender. The report shall be made part of the record of the hearing.
* * *
(H)(1) A court shall not grant a judicial release under this section to an eligible offender who is imprisoned for a felony of the first or second degree * * * unless the court, with reference to factоrs under section
2929.12 of the Revised Code, finds both of the following:(a) That a sanction other than a prison term would adequately punish the offender and protect the public from future criminal violations by the eligible offender because the applicable factors indicating a lesser likelihood of recidivism outweigh the applicable factors indicating a greater likelihood of recidivism;
(b) That a sanction other than a prison term would not demean the seriousness of the offense because factors indicating that the eligible offender‘s conduct in committing the offense was less serious than conduct normally cоnstituting the offense outweigh factors indicating that the eligible offender‘s conduct was more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense.
(2) A cоurt that grants a judicial release to an eligible offender under division (H)(1) of this section shall specify on the record both findings required in that division and also shаll list all the factors described in that division that were presented at the hearing.
{¶10} The State argues that the trial court failed to comply with former
{¶11} Regarding former
{¶12} Regarding the requirements of former
{¶13} Regarding the requirements of former
{¶14} Whеn presented with similar cases, this court has consistently reversed and remanded cases for further clarification and statutory findings. See State v. Hunt, 10th Dist. No. 04AP-1177, 2005-Ohio-3144; see also State v. Triplett, 176 Ohio App.3d 603, 2008-Ohio-397; see also State v. Kelley, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-118, 2008-Ohio-3828. We find these decisions to be particularly directive.
{¶15} In the instant mattеr, we have no way of knowing whether the trial court engaged in the appropriate analysis and considered the applicable faсtors before granting judicial release. Because there are no specific findings in the record, we must reverse and remand this matter “to allоw the trial court to make the necessary findings if supported by the facts of the case.” Hunt at ¶13, citing State v. Peoples, 151 Ohio App.3d 446, 2003-Ohio-151, ¶35; see also Kelley at ¶10. As a result, we sustain the State‘s first and third assignments of error. Having found thаt the trial court must be afforded with the opportunity to make findings, we overrule the State‘s second assignment of error. We will not impede upon the triаl court‘s discretion to determine if judicial release is appropriate in this matter.
{¶16} Based upon the foregoing, we sustain the State‘s first and third assignments of error and overrule the State‘s second assignment of error. Accordingly, we reverse in part and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed in part; cause remanded.
KLATT and FRENCH, JJ., concur.
___________