Summary#
HB 1027, “Require certain standards for parole violation hearings,” is an introduced bill that would amend section 2967.15 of the Ohio Revised Code. Its stated goal is to set standards for hearings on alleged release-condition violations. The bill text does not show which parts differ from current law; the existing version of section 2967.15 was not supplied for comparison.
- For covered cases, the proposed text would require the adult parole authority (APA) to hold a hearing before revoking a person’s pardon, parole, or other release, or before imposing a new prison term as a post-release control sanction. The hearing must follow department rules adopted under Chapter 119 of the Revised Code and the Rules of Evidence.
- The APA representative at the hearing could not also be a witness at that hearing.
- The parole board member or hearing officer presiding must be licensed, or previously licensed, to practise law in the United States.
- The APA would not be required to grant a hearing if the person was convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense committed while released, and that offense is the basis for revocation.
- The proposed section also says that a person must be released under the original release terms if the APA does not decide the case within a reasonable time.
What it means for you#
- People supervised by the APA: If the proposed hearing requirement applies to your case, you would be entitled to a hearing before the specified revocation or prison-term decision. The bill does not require a hearing in the conviction-or-guilty-plea situation described above.
- APA staff and hearing officials: The APA would have to follow the stated hearing rules. Its representative could not also testify, and the presiding board member or hearing officer would need the specified legal qualification.
- People on other forms of release: The text covers conditional pardons, parole, other forms of authorized release, transitional control, and post-release control in its provisions. It does not create a general new service or benefit for people outside those groups.
- Current-law comparison: Because the existing section was not supplied, it is not possible to confirm which of these requirements are new.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill sets hearing requirements but gives no estimate for public spending, staffing, training, or other costs.
- It does not specify new fees, fines, or payments.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not give a specific deadline for hearings or decisions; it uses “within a reasonable time” for the decision provision.
- It does not set out appeal rights, hearing notice rules, or detailed procedures for applying the Rules of Evidence.
- The supplied material does not establish how the proposed requirements compare with current law.
- The bill text does not state a start date. Its status is introduced, so it is not law.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that a person facing loss of release or a new prison term should have a defined hearing process before that decision.
- Requiring the presiding official to have legal training could support consistent handling of legal and evidence issues.
- Separating the APA representative’s role from that of a witness could help distinguish presenting the authority’s case from giving testimony.
Case against#
- The bill does not explain how quickly hearings must happen or provide detailed procedures, leaving important parts of the process to department rules and the Rules of Evidence.
- The exception means a hearing would not be required in the specified cases involving a conviction or guilty plea, even though revocation could follow.
- Applying formal evidence rules and the qualifications requirement may require added time or resources; the bill provides no cost estimate.
- Without the current version of the amended section, readers cannot tell how much of the proposed text would change existing practice.