State v. Edwards

In State v. Edwards, 3d Dist. No. 9-04-67, 2005 Ohio 2246, this Court considered a nearly identical issue concerning a trial court's specification of findings and listing of factors under the judicial release statute. In Edwards, the trial court made findings on the record that "the defendant is eligible for judicial release, and that a reduction of sentence and implementation of community control sanctions will adequately protect the public and will not demean the seriousness of the offense." The trial court proceeded to state that it based its decision to grant judicial release on the basis that the defendant had an excellent institutional report, no prior criminal history, had exhibited remorse, was sixty-nine years old, had been a law abiding citizen for many years, and needed to pay restitution to the victims of his offenses. Thus, the journal entry clearly addressed the recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 and stated the required findings that granting judicial release and imposing community control sanctions adequately punished the offender and protected the public, and that it would not demean the seriousness of the offense. However, the trial court failed to list all of the factors regarding the seriousness of the offense that were presented at the hearing. Accordingly, this Court reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions for it to list all factors presented at the hearing.