What happens if the judge does not rule on a motion for judicial release within the allotted 240 days after the motion is filed?

Full question:

What happens if the judge does not rule on a motion for judicial release within the allotted 240 days after the motion is filed?

• Category: Criminal
• Date: 04/07/2025
• State: Ohio

Answer:

The relevant portion of the Ohio judicial release statute states"...Upon receipt of a timely motion for judicial release filed by an eligible offender under division (B) of this section or upon the sentencing court’s own motion made within the appropriate time period specified in that division, the court may schedule a hearing on the motion. The court may deny the motion without a hearing but shall not grant the motion without a hearing. If a court denies a motion without a hearing, the court may consider a subsequent judicial release for that eligible offender on its own motion or a subsequent motion filed by that eligible offender. If a court denies a motion after a hearing, the court shall not consider a subsequent motion for that eligible offender. The court shall hold only one hearing for any eligible offender. A hearing under this section shall be conducted in open court within sixty days after the date on which the motion is filed, provided that the court may delay the hearing for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty additional days. If the court holds a hearing on the motion, the court shall enter a ruling on the motion within ten days after the hearing. If the court denies the motion without a hearing, the court shall enter its ruling on the motion within sixty days after the motion is filed...." The 240 day requirement applies to when a hearing is to be held on the motion, however a hearing is not required to be held. A hearing must only be held if the motion is granted. The 240 days applies to the time for holding a hearing, not the time for issuing a ruling. The motion may be denied without a hearing.

However, there is case law that has found the 240 days not to be a strict requirement. In State v Riley, No. 00AP! -599 (10 th Dist. Ct. Apps., Franklin Co., 10-31-00), the defendant, Riley, entered a guilty plea to robbery and received a three-year prison term. On August 13, 1999, the defendant filed a motion for judicial release under R.C. 2929.20. The trail court held a hearing on May 5, 2000. The court granted judicial release on May 9, 2000.

The state appealed, arguing that the trial court lost jurisdiction when it failed to hold a hearing within sixty days, as R.C. 2929.20 (C) requires.

The Franklin County Court of Appeals disagreed. As R.C. 2929.20 (B) allows a court to grant judicial release upon its own motion, the appellate court reasoned, the General Assembly could not have intended a court's delay in ruling on a defendant's motion to divest the trial court of jurisdiction to grant a defendant's motion for judicial release.

I suggest consulting a local attorney who can review all the facts and documents involved.