[Cite as State v. Rush, 2024-Ohio-620.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLERMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

CAMERON W. RUSH,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2023-09-062

O P I N I O N

2/20/2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. 2022 CR 000960

Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nicholas A. Horton,

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Christopher Bazeley, for appellant.

M. POWELL, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Cameron Rush, appeals the sentence he received in the

Clermont County Court of Common Pleas following his guilty plea to endangering

children.

{¶2} Appellant pled guilty in 2023 to two counts of endangering children in
Clermont CA2023-09-062

- 2 -

violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1). Following a sentencing hearing on August 10, 2023, the

trial court sentenced appellant to an indefinite, aggregate sentence of ten to 12-and-onehalf years in prison and informed him that he was subject to a mandatory term of

postrelease control for a minimum of 18 months up to three years following his release

from prison.

{¶3} Appellant now appeals, raising one assignment of error:

{¶4} THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY IMPOSE POST RELEASE

CONTROL (PRC).

{¶5} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing postrelease control

because the court failed to inform him that (1) a violation of his postrelease control could

result in "consequences short of a return to prison–for example, a more restrictive

sanction could be imposed," and (2) his postrelease control would be supervised by the

Adult Parole Authority.

{¶6} "A trial court must properly impose postrelease control at the sentencing

hearing and in the sentencing entry." State v. Demangone, 12th Dist. Clermont No.

CA2022-11-081, 2023-Ohio-2522, ¶ 22; State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 2012-Ohio1111, ¶ 18-19. Because a trial court has a statutory duty to provide notice of postrelease

control at the sentencing hearing, any sentence imposed without such notification is

contrary to law. State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19, 2017-Ohio-2927, ¶ 8. 

{¶7} To properly impose postrelease control, the trial court must inform the

defendant at the sentencing hearing that upon the defendant's release from prison, he or

she will be subject to postrelease control if convicted of a felony for which postrelease

control is mandatory pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(d) and 2967.28(B), or that the

defendant may be subject to postrelease control if convicted of a less-serious felony for

which the Adult Parole Authority has discretion to impose postrelease control under R.C.
Clermont CA2023-09-062

- 3 -

2929.19(B)(2)(e) and 2967.28(C). Id. at ¶ 9. The court must also inform the defendant

of the length or potential length of postrelease control, and that if he or she "violates that

supervision * * *, the parole board may impose a prison term, as part of the sentence, of

up to one-half of the stated prison term originally imposed upon the offender." Id.; R.C.

2929.19(B)(2)(f). After orally providing these notifications, the trial court must incorporate

them into its sentencing entry. Id. at ¶ 8. To validly impose postrelease control, the

sentencing entry must set forth the following information:

(1) whether postrelease control is discretionary or mandatory,

(2) the duration of the postrelease-control period, and (3) a

statement to the effect that the Adult Parole Authority * * * will

administer the postrelease control pursuant to R.C. 2967.28

and that any violation by the offender of the conditions of

postrelease control will subject the offender to the

consequences set forth in that statute.

Id. at ¶ 1.

{¶8} As applicable here, the required postrelease control notifications are

derived from R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(d) and (f), which state in relevant part:

[I]f the sentencing court determines at the sentencing hearing

that a prison term is necessary or required, the court shall do

all of the following:

* * *

(d) Notify the offender that the offender will be supervised

under [R.C.] 2967.28 after the offender leaves prison if the

offender is being sentenced, other than to a sentence of life

imprisonment, for a felony of the first degree or second

degree[.]

* * *

(f) Notify the offender that, if a period of supervision is

imposed following the offender's release from prison, as

described in division (B)(2)(d) or (e) of this section, and if the

offender violates that supervision or a condition of postrelease control imposed under division (B) of section

2967.131 of the Revised Code, the parole board may impose

a prison term, as part of the sentence, of up to one-half of the
Clermont CA2023-09-062

- 4 -

definite prison term originally imposed upon the offender as

the offender's stated prison term or up to one-half of the

minimum prison term originally imposed upon the offender as

part of the offender's stated non-life felony indefinite prison

term. * * *

{¶9} Appellant was convicted of endangering children, a felony of the second

degree. As a result, he was subject to a mandatory term of postrelease control for a

minimum of 18 months up to three years. R.C. 2967.28(B)(3). When appellant was

sentenced, the trial court complied with the notification requirements set forth in R.C.

2929.19(B)(2) by informing appellant of the following:

When you are released from prison, Mr. Rush, the

Department of Corrections is required to place you on a period

of post-release control for a minimum of 18 months up to three

years. It's a mandatory post-release control term. While

you're on post-release control, if you would violate any of their

rules of supervision, they could return you to prison for the first

violation for not more than nine months, and for multiple

violations, not more than one half of the minimum sentence

imposed. [W]hen you're on post-release control, and you

would violate that post-release control or be convicted of a

new felony offense, the judge that would sentence you for any

new felony offense could revoke your post-release control and

return you to prison for the greater of one year or the time

remaining in post-release control, and that judge would be

required to have you serve that sentence consecutively to any

new prison term.

These notifications were then incorporated into the trial court's August 11, 2023

sentencing entry.

{¶10} Based on the record before us, we find that postrelease control was properly

imposed. We recently held that a trial court is "not required to orally advise [a defendant]

of the 'possibility that a violation could result in other penalties including more restrictive

sanctions, a longer period of supervision, or that he could be sent back to prison even if

he completed all of his sentenced prison time as required by R.C. 2967.28(F)(3)' as such

advisements are not required by the express language of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)."
Clermont CA2023-09-062

- 5 -

Demangone, 2023-Ohio-2522 at ¶ 25. For the same reasons, and contrary to appellant's

assertion, the trial court was not required to advise him that a violation of his postrelease

control could result in "consequences short of a return to prison." "Had the legislature

intended for defendants to be provided with additional notifications about postrelease

control, it would have included those notifications and requirements in R.C.

2929.19(B)(2). It chose not to do so." Id.; State v. Vest, 4th Dist. Ross Nos. 22CA32 and

22CA33, 2024-Ohio-62. 

{¶11} Appellant also argues that the trial court improperly imposed postrelease

control because it did not identify the Adult Parole Authority as the supervising agency. 

While the trial court did not state that appellant would be supervised by the Adult Parole

Authority, it did inform appellant that the Ohio "Department of Corrections" would be the

entity managing his supervision. It is well settled that the Adult Parole Authority is a

division of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. See State v. Rhoads,

3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-18-02, 2018-Ohio-2620, ¶ 16; Lee v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2d

Dist. Montgomery No. 18833, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3852, *12 (Aug. 31, 2001); R.C.

5149.02. We therefore find no merit to appellant's argument. 

{¶12} Accordingly, as the trial court complied with the postrelease control

notification requirements at the sentencing hearing and incorporated the required

information into its sentencing entry, we find that the trial court properly imposed on

appellant a mandatory term of postrelease control for a period of a minimum of 18 months

up to three years.

{¶13} Appellant's assignment of error is overruled.

{¶14} Judgment affirmed.

S. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.