PAROLE;

Court Cases;

You asked for a summary of an Ohio Supreme Court case on parole eligibility and how it compares to Connecticut law.

SUMMARY

In Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, the Ohio Supreme Court considered the Ohio Parole Authority’s (APA) new parole guidelines (97 Ohio St. 3d__, 2002 Ohio 6719 (December 18, 2002)). These guidelines use two factors to determine a range of time a prisoner should serve before release: (1) the seriousness of the crime and (2) the offender’s risk of recidivism. Each factor receives a score and the numbers are located on a grid to determine the appropriate guideline range.

Each crime is assigned to one of 13 offense categories. For this purpose, the APA considers the conduct and circumstances of the conviction offense and can look beyond it to the circumstances surrounding the offense to assign a score that is higher or lower than that applicable to the conviction offense.

In three cases before the Ohio Supreme Court, inmates who plead guilty to certain crimes under plea agreements received scores higher than required for the conviction offense because the APA based their score on more serious crimes that were charged in the indictment but withdrawn in the plea agreement. This resulted in substantially more time before consideration for release on parole than if the inmate had been assigned a score solely based on the conviction offense.

The court ruled that the APA violated the plea agreements in these cases and stated that the parole eligibility statute requires more than a hearing where the conviction is disregarded and eligibility is judged largely, if not entirely, on an offense category score that does not correspond to the conviction offenses in the plea agreement. The court concluded that the APA must assign an offense category score that corresponds to the conviction offense although it retains discretion to consider any circumstances relating to the conviction offense, including crimes that did not result in conviction and other factors that the APA considers relevant.

Under Connecticut law, inmates are eligible for parole after serving (1) 50% of their sentence or (2) 85% of their sentence if convicted of an offense where the underlying facts and circumstances involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person. Inmates convicted of certain crimes are ineligible for parole. Under regulations, the board can consider the underlying acts constituting the offense or any offense the inmate is serving time in prison for or any other relevant information to determine that the offender is a violent offender and ineligible until serving 85% of his sentence. Other relevant information can include his criminal history.

Ohio’s parole guidelines system is different from Connecticut’s system, but both can look beyond the conviction offense when determining which initial eligibility date applies to an offender. Under Connecticut regulations, the parole board can look at conduct that was charged but not the subject of the conviction, which would be similar to the situation in the Ohio case and the reasoning of the Ohio court could apply to Connecticut. But Connecticut’s parole board does not find that a person committed a crime to increase a person’s classification. This could be considered different from finding that a person committed a crime when the charge for that crime was specifically dropped in a plea agreement.

Also, another basis for the Ohio court’s ruling was that the board’s use of discretion in the guidelines system conflicted with the statute in that case.

LAYNE V. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY

Facts

The Ohio Supreme Court had three cases before it.

1. Wiley Lane entered a plea agreement to plead guilty to two weapons charges and an abduction charge while the state dropped a kidnapping charge. He received an indefinite term of two to 10 years in prison. He received a risk score of four and, based on his convictions, would receive an offense score of seven at the highest, resulting in a range of between 60 and 84 months before release on parole. The parole board instead determined that he committed kidnapping and gave him an offense score of 10, which combined with the risk score to require 150 to 210 months before release.

2. Gerald Houston entered a plea agreement for aggravated burglary, three counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of attempted murder. The state dropped two kidnapping charges. He received an indeterminate sentence of 20 to 100 years. The parole board initially gave him an offense category of 10 based on the two counts of attempted aggravated murder and a risk score of one, resulting in a range of 120 to 180 months before parole release. The board increased his offense category to 12, in part because of an attempted rape that he was not indicted or convicted for. This resulted in a release date of 240 to 300 months and the board, at a later hearing, required 270 months before consideration.

3. Howard Lee entered a plea agreement to reduce an aggravated murder charge to involuntary manslaughter during the commission of a felony. He received an indeterminate sentence of nine to 25 years with an additional three years because of a specification about use of a firearm. The parole board gave him an offense category of 13 for aggravated murder, rather than eight for involuntary manslaughter. This resulted in a range of 360 months to life. Requiring 360 months (30 years) before parole consideration exceeded his maximum prison term (28 years) without a chance of parole.

Court Ruling

The court considered “whether the APA breaches a plea agreement when it assigns an inmate, for purposes of parole eligibility, an offense category score based on the alleged underlying criminal activity rather than on the offense or offenses of which the inmate was convicted. ”

The Supreme Court agreed with an appellate court’s reasoning that the APA:

1. is bound by the state’s plea agreement as an agency of the state;

2. must assign an offense category that corresponds to the actual conviction; and

3. retains discretion to decide that an inmate should serve the maximum sentence and, in making this decision, it can consider relevant facts and circumstances including offenses in the indictment and any circumstances surrounding the defendant.

The court stated that the parole statute makes a prisoner serving an indefinite term for a felony eligible for parole after serving the minimum term and inherent in the language “eligible for parole” is the expectation of meaningful consideration for parole. The court stated that this requires more than a hearing where the conviction is disregarded and eligibility is judged largely, if not entirely, on an offense category score that does not correspond to the conviction offenses in the plea agreement. The court concluded that the APA’s guidelines make the statutory language about parole eligibility at the end of a prisoner’s minimum term meaningless.

The court stated that the APA has broad discretion but its discretion must yield to statutory parole eligibility standards and judicially sanctioned plea agreements. It stated that the APA retains discretion, when considering an inmate for parole, to consider any circumstances of the offense, including crimes that did not result in conviction and any other factors it deems relevant.

The court concluded that for indeterminate sentencing, the APA must assign an offense category score that corresponds to the conviction offense although it retains discretion to consider any circumstances relating to the conviction offense, including crimes that did not result in conviction and other factors that the APA considers relevant.

CONNECTICUT LAW

Under Connecticut law, inmates are eligible for parole after serving (1) 50% of their sentence or (2) 85% of their sentence if convicted of an offense where the underlying facts and circumstances involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person. Inmates convicted of certain crimes are ineligible for parole (CGS § 54-125a).

Under parole board regulations, a panel of the board determines if an inmate is subject to the 85% rule by determining whether the (1) offense involves the use, attempted, or threatened use of force or (2) underlying acts constituting any offense that the inmate is serving a sentence for or any other relevant information shows that the inmate is a violent offender. The board can consider any information it believes is relevant.

The regulations include a list of offenses that require the inmate to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. In all other cases, the board considers whether the underlying acts constituting the offense or any offense the inmate is in prison for or any relevant information shows a tendency toward the use, attempted, or threatened use of physical force against another person. The information the board considers can include, but is not limited to, presentence reports, state police criminal records checks, sentencing dockets, information from the criminal justice information system, police reports, out-of-state criminal records, parole and probation reports, victim statements, witness statements, and prior incarceration history. The panel will also “determine whether the inmate has a past history and/or a series or a pattern of convictions for an offense” listed as an 85% offense (Conn. Regs. § 54-125a-3, et seq. ).

COMPARISON OF CONNECTICUT AND OHIO

The parole boards in Connecticut and Ohio both have a mix of statutory requirements and discretionary authority. Ohio’s parole guidelines system is different from Connecticut’s system, but both can look beyond the conviction offense when determining which initial eligibility date applies to an offender. Connecticut’s parole board does not find that a person committed a crime to increase a person’s classification, but under the statute and regulations it can look at conduct that was charged but not the subject of the conviction, which

would be similar to the situation in the Ohio case. Looking at the underlying circumstances of a case or a defendant’s criminal history could be considered different from finding that a person committed a crime when the charge for that crime was specifically dropped in a plea agreement.

The Ohio court found that the board’s use of discretion in the guidelines system conflicted with the statute in that case. The court also upheld the parole board’s discretion when considering an inmate for parole and stated that it could consider any circumstances relating to the conviction offense and any other relevant factors, which seems similar to what Connecticut does, but it could not violate the plea agreement by setting the person’s parole eligibility based on charges dropped as part of the plea agreement.

Connecticut Background

According to information provided by Brian Anderson, liaison for Connecticut’s Board of Parole, 98. 1% of prisoners during 2002 who were found ineligible for parole until serving 85% of their sentence were convicted of crimes that are listed in the regulations as crimes involving violence. He stated that the remaining 1. 9% were assigned to the 85% category under the board’s discretion and most, if not all, of those prisoners had two or more prior convictions for violent offenses.

CR: ts