Surprise Prison Term for Violation of Post-Release Control.

PRC is what we used to call parole and it is a part of every felony sentence.  Here is how the Department of Corrections describes it, "post‑release control (PRC) is a period of supervision of an offender by the Adult Parole Authority following release from imprisonment that includes one or more post release control sanctions imposed by the Parole Board pursuant to ORC section 2967.28."  You can find a chart with the PRC terms at http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/PRC.htm.

Here is the danger handing cases with a client who catches a new criminal case while on PRC: the Parole Authority can impose an administrative sanction for a violation of PRC conditions and the Court handling the new case can impose a separate term of imprisonment for the PRC violation.  This term of imprisonment is in addition to the prison time for the new criminal case.  So, what might seem like an easy felony plea bargain with some administrative PRC sanction, can very quickly become a case with increments of additional years in prison for the PRC violation.  

R.C. 2929.141 specifically provides: 

(1) In addition to any prison term for the new felony, impose a prison term for the post‑release control violation. The maximum prison term for the violation shall be the greater of twelve months or the period of post‑release control for the earlier felony minus any time the person has spent under post‑release control for the earlier felony. In all cases, any prison term imposed for the violation shall be reduced by any prison term that is administratively imposed by the parole board as a post‑release control sanction. A prison term imposed for the violation shall be served consecutively to any prison term imposed for the new felony. The imposition of a prison term for the post‑release control violation shall terminate the period of post‑release control for the earlier felony.

(2) Impose a sanction under sections 2929.15 to 2929.18 of the Revised Code for the violation that shall be served concurrently or consecutively, as specified by the court, with any community control sanctions for the new felony.

If you have an issue like this, look first to the underlying conviction which brought the PRC to determine whether the PRC imposed by the Parole Authority is lawful.  The Ohio Supreme Court held recently that a sentence that did not impose the correct term of post-release control was void, and thus, an escape conviction cannot be based on an invalid sentence. State v. Billiter (2012), 134 Ohio St.3d 103. Therein, the Billiter trial court advised him of the potential for three years PRC, when five years was mandatory.  When he completed his sentence the Parole Authority imposed five.  When he caught his new case, the trial court imposed a new PRC prison term.  The Ohio Supreme Court held that the PRC term was void and because he had completed his term, it could not be corrected. 

Merger of Allied Offenses can save the day.

In 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court revisited the definition and application of the allied offenses concept. In State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio-6314, the Court reviewed the prior law from State v. Rance (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 632, and concluded that the Rance standard was unworkable. The concept of "allied offenses of similar import" has its origins in the concept of merger and is codified in R.C. 2941.25. Do not underestimate its importance as the concept is designed to protect against a Double Jeopardy violation where a person is sentenced twice for what is in essence the same offense.

The Court went on to expressly overrule Rance. Impressively, the Court explained that the broad purpose of the allied offenses concept "ought not be watered down with artificial and academic equivocation regarding the similarities of the crimes. When 'in substance and effect but one offense has been committed,' the defendant may be convicted of only one offense." Id. para. 43. With that, here is precisely the test adopted by the Court:

[T]he question is whether it is possible to commit one offense and commit the other with the same conduct, not whether it is possible to commit one without committing the other. * * * If the offenses correspond to such a degree that the conduct of the defendant constituting commission of one offense constitutes commission of the other, then the offenses are of similar import.

If the multiple offenses can be committed by the same conduct, then the court must determine whether the offenses were committed by the same conduct, i.e., Aa single act, committed with a single state of mind.@ * * *

If the answer to both questions is yes, then the offenses are allied offenses of similar import and will be merged.

In addition to looking at the elements of the charges themselves, applying this Johnson test to the indicted offenses is critical to any defense preparation or plea negotiations.  If you fail to apply this test during plea negotiations, you and your client may accept a fools bargain.  Moreover, if you are planning a trial strategy, you may legitimately design a defense that leaves the Court with the conclusion that it is duty bound to merge any guilty counts. 

Although Johnson was a 2010 case, most courts of appeals have looked at it a few times.  Watch carefully in that your allied offenses analysis can fail if there is strong contextual evidence supporting a separate animus for each charge.  Black's Law defines animus as generally intention, design, or will and the Ohio Supreme Court has interpreted animus "to mean >purpose or, more properly, immediate motive,= and infers animus from the surrounding circumstances.@ State v. Shields, 2011BOhioB1912, & 16, quoting State v. Logan (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131.  Animus is just a terrible term to use in the criminal context as the whole of criminal law and the underlying offenses themselves speak to intend and purpose.  There really is no remarkable case law providing any real guidance on the animus aspect of the analysis although it has been described as "[w]here an individual's immediate motive involves the commission of one offense, but in the course of committing that crime he must, A priori, [sic] commit another, then he may well possess but a single animus, and in that event may be convicted of only one crime.@ State v. Beverly, 2013‑Ohio‑1365.

Your Silence Can Be Used Against You.

I could swear I heard somewhere that a defendant has a right to remain silent and that the state cannot comment on the silence at trial. I could be wrong, but I swear I heard it somewhere.

On June 17, 2013, in Salinas v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court clarified for me. It held that the state could use at trial a defendant's failure to answer some questions where the defendant was not yet in custody and had answered some questions but refused to answer others. We know that the relevant provision in the Fifth Amendment reads that a defendant shall not "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself [.]" Prior to being in custody or Mirandized, Salinas answered some questions from police. When asked about ballistics testing, he remained silent. Texas argued at trial that this was evidence of guilt. Salinas argued that the comment violated his Fifth Amendment privilege not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court rejected this argument. The case is interesting in that the Court took the case to decide the question of the prosecution may use during its case-in-chief a defendant's assertion of the right to remain silent during a non-custodial interrogation. The Court though did not answer that question because it concluded that the Salinas had not invoked his privilege during the interrogation. (2013), 133 S.Ct. 2174. (Yep, mere silence is not enough to invoke the right to remain silent.)

The Court looked first at what it described as the long held opinion that those who desire the protection of the privilege, must claim it. Id. at 2179. The Court reasoned that this was necessary to ensure that the government is "put on notice when a witness intends to rely on the privilege[.]" (Nope, not answering a question is not enough notice.) In short and clear language, the Court held that "[b]efore petitioner could rely on the privilege against self-incrimination, he was required to invoke it."

Salinas is certainly complicated case law for criminal defense. Interesting though, remember that Salinas was not subject to a custodial interrogation. That is a critical fact that cannot be ignored.