Docstoc

Collateral Sanctions SB HB CAM

Document Sample
Collateral Sanctions SB HB CAM Powered By Docstoc
					       Recent Legislation on
      Collateral Consequences

Andre R. Imbrogno, Member, Ohio Parole Board
 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
    Collateral Consequences
• “Collateral consequences” are
  restrictions, disabilities, or penalties
  beyond the direct punishment imposed on
  individuals at the time of sentencing.
• Generally, the term “collateral
  consequence” includes both “collateral
  sanctions,” which apply automatically
  upon conviction, and “discretionary
  disqualifications.”
          Why Do Collateral
        Consequences Matter?
• Over 1.9 million Ohio residents (out of 11.5 million, or
  17%) have a misdemeanor or felony conviction.
• For many Ohioans, their criminal histories limit their
  employment opportunities.
• The inability to obtain employment, in turn, frustrates
  successful reentry.
• There are over 800 places in the Ohio Revised Code
  and the Ohio Administrative Code that lists sanctions
  related to employment and other barriers for persons
  who have misdemeanor or felony convictions in their
  backgrounds.
                A National Problem
• In 1974, 1.8 million (1.3% of the population) had
  been imprisoned at some point in their lives. By
  2001, that number had risen to 5.6 million (2.7% of
  the adult population). If that rate remains
  unchanged, 6.6% of Americans born in 2001 will
  serve prison time in their lives. An even larger
  portion of the population has been convicted of a
  criminal offense without going to prison. According
  to a 2003 DOJ report, nearly 25% of the population
  (71 million) had a criminal record.
(source: Uniform Law Commission Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act Summary)
 Facilitating Successful Reentry
• Ohio’s offender recidivism rate is currently at
  an 11-year low, with only 34% of inmates
  returning to prison after release.
• Ohio continues to explore opportunities to
  further decrease the number of offenders
  who return to prison.
• Approximately 400,000 individuals have
  come through the prison system since the
  mid-1980s.
 Facilitating Successful Reentry
• The important role that gainful employment plays in
  successful reentry is recognized in Parole Board release
  considerations. Per administrative rule (5120:1-1-07), in
  determining suitability for release, the Board is to
  consider, among other things:
      • The “inmate’s employment history and . . .
        occupational skills” as well as the “inmate’s
        vocational, educational, and other training.”
      • “The adequacy of the inmate’s plan or prospects
        on release.”
         Recent Legislation
Two recently enacted pieces of legislation
 address collateral consequences in Ohio:

         HB 86 (Effective 9/30/11)

        SB 337 (Effective 9/28/12)
• House Bill 86, enacted in 2011, is a
  comprehensive act that reformed virtually
  every aspect of Ohio’s criminal justice
  system, including sentencing, community
  supervision, and reentry.
State v. Foster—Consecutive Sentences
Crack/Powder Cocaine Penalty Equalization
 Sentencing Guidance on Drug Offenses
 Theft Thresholds
 Non-Support Penalties
Intervention in Lieu
Probation Improvement and Incentive Grants
Admissions to Residential Community Sanctions
Concurrent Supervision
Probation and Training Standards
Justice Reinvestment
 Risk Reduction Sentencing
Felony 4 and Felony 5 Sentencing/Felony 1 and Felony 3 Sentencing Ranges
 Traditional Judicial Release (R.C. 2929.20)
New 80% Judicial Release (R.C. 2967.19)
Earned Credit
Collateral Consequences: Certificate of Achievement and Employability
• In House Bill 86, the Ohio legislature took
  a first, modest step toward addressing
  collateral consequences through the
  Certificate of Achievement and
  Employability.
 Overview
Eligible offenders may apply to the DRC for a
  certificate that relieves the applicant from one or
  more “mandatory civil impacts”— any section of
  the Revised Code or Administrative Code that
  creates a penalty, disability, or disadvantage that
  is imposed by a licensing agency or employer
  and which precludes a person with a criminal
  record from obtaining licensure or employment.
Individual Consideration/Rebuttable Presumption
 If a person who has been issued a certificate applies to
 a licensing agency for a license or certificate and the
 person has a conviction that otherwise would bar
 licensure or certification, the licensing agency must give
 the person individualized consideration.
 Certificate creates a rebuttable presumption that the
 criminal conviction is insufficient evidence that the
 person is unfit.
       However, license/certification may be denied if agency
        determines the applicant is unfit after individualized
        consideration.
 Rules Applying to Employers
Same rules, above, apply for employers who
 are seeking a license or certification and who
 have hired a certificate holder.
 Employer Immunity: Negligent Hiring
   If an employer hires a certificate holder, if
 a subsequent action is filed against the
 employer for negligent hiring based on the
 employer’s actual or constructive knowledge
 of the certificate holder’s incompetence or
 dangerousness, the certificate is an absolute
 defense to the element of the employer’s
 actual or constructive knowledge.
 Employer Immunity: Negligent Retention
   If the certificate holder, after being hired,
  subsequently demonstrates dangerousness and
  if the employer nevertheless retains the
  employee, the employer may be held liable in a
  civil action that relates to the retention only if it is
  proven that the employer had actual knowledge
  of the employee’s dangerousness and willfully
  retained the employee after the employee
  demonstrated the employee’s dangerousness.
 Eligibility for a Certificate
    Applicant is currently incarcerated with an
     expected release date that is one year or
     less from the date of the application or the
     applicant is currently on parole or post-
     release control.
    The applicant satisfactorily completed
     one or more in-prison vocational
     programs approved by department rule.
 Eligibility for a certificate (continued):
    The applicant completed one or more
     cognitive or behavioral improvement
     programs while incarcerated, while under
     supervision, or both.
    The applicant has completed community
     service hours.
    The applicant has shown other evidence
     of achievement and rehabilitation.
 “Evidence of achievement and
  rehabilitation”— Examples:
    Completing adult basic education
    Obtaining a GED
    Completing a pre-GED program
    Obtaining a high school diploma
    Completing anger management
    Completing victim awareness
 Revocation of Certificate
   An issued certificate must be revoked if
    the certificate holder is subsequently
    convicted of any offense other than a
    minor misdemeanor or traffic offense.
   Certificate cannot be revoked for violation
    of a condition of release unless the
    violation is also a criminal offense.
• Effective September 28, 2012.
• Enacts a number of proposals developed
  in collateral consequences forums
  debuted in 2011 by Gov. Kasich and co-
  sponsored by DRC and DYS to formulate
  consensus-based policy proposals to
  present to the General Assembly.
  – Other stakeholders included legislators, judges,
    prosecutors, and the Ohio Public Defender.
• Areas Affected by Senate Bill 337
  – Professional Licensing
  – Record Sealing
  – Child Support
  – Traffic Penalties/Driver’s Licenses
  – Juvenile Justice
• Certificate of Qualification for Employment
  (CQE)
Senate Bill 337 creates a new type of court-issued
  certificate that removes barriers to professional
  licensing. The CQE lifts the automatic bar of an
  employment-related collateral consequence and
  entitles the certificate holder to individualized
  consideration on the question of fitness.
The CQE builds upon the concept of the Certificate
  of Achievement and Employability.
• CQEs: Eligibility
An individual is eligible for a CQE regardless of
  whether the offender was incarcerated for the
  crime or instead received community control.
  Application may be made at any time after one
  year has expired from release from incarceration
  and any period of post-release supervision, or
  one year from final release from all community
  control sanctions, as appropriate.
• CQEs: Review of Applications
In most cases, applications for CQEs are
  submitted to the DRC and are reviewed for
  completeness by DRC’s Adult Parole
  Authority. If the application is complete,
  the APA will forward the application to the
  court of common pleas of the county in
  which the applicant resides.
• CQEs: Application Information
(1) Name, date of birth, and Social Security number.
(2) All aliases and all Social Security numbers associated
    with the aliases.
(3) Residence address.
(4) Length of time that the applicant has been an Ohio
    resident.
(5) Name or type of each collateral sanction from which the
    individual is requesting a CQE.
• CQEs: Application Information (continued):
(6) A summary of the applicant’s criminal history with
   respect to each offense that is a disqualification from
   employment or licensing, including the years of each
   conviction.
(7) A summary of the applicant’s employment history.
(8) Verifiable references.
(9) The name of immediate family members or others who
   support the applicant’s reentry plan.
• CQEs: Application Information (continued):
(10) A summary of the reason that the applicant
  believes the CQE should be granted.
(11) Any other information required by DRC
  rule.
• CQEs: Factors for Court to Consider
A court of common pleas must consider all of the following
   factors in deciding whether or not to grant a CQE:
(1) Will granting the certificate materially assist the
     offender in finding employment?
(2) Does the offender have a substantial need for the CQE
     in order to live a law-abiding life?
(3) Will granting the CQE pose an unreasonable safety risk
     to the general public or any individual?
The burden is on the applicant to establish each of these
criteria in his or her favor by a preponderance of evidence.
• A court may not issue a CQE that grants the
  individual relief from any of the following:
   – Requirements imposed under the SORN
     Law.
   – Certain driver’s license suspensions or
     revocations, including DUI.
   – Restrictions on employment as a
     prosecutor or law enforcement officer.
• CQE limitations—Collateral Consequences Not Eligible
  (continued)
   – Denial, ineligibility, or automatic suspension of a license as
     a health care professional under Title 47 if the person was
     convicted of aggravated murder, murder, voluntary
     manslaughter, felonious assault, kidnapping, rape, sexual
     battery, GSI, aggravated arson, aggravated robbery,
     aggravated burglary, unlawful distribution of abortion-
     inducing drug.
   – Immediate suspension of a license, certificate, or evidence
     of registration imposed on a licensed health care
     professional who is addicted to or illegally distributing a
     controlled substance.
• CQE limitations—Collateral
  Consequences Not Eligible (continued)
  – Denial or ineligibility for employment in a pain
    clinic for those convicted of felony drug
    offenses or felony theft offenses.
  – The mandatory suspension of a license as a
    health care professional for being in default
    on child support payments.
• CQEs: Court Procedure
• Court of common pleas where the applicant resides
  hears and determines the application.
• Steps the court must take upon receiving an application:
   – Notify the prosecutor of the county where the
     applicant resides that the prosecutor may send
     comments.
   – Notify all other courts in the state in which the
     offender has been convicted of an offense that the
     court may send comments on the application.
• CQEs: Court Procedure (continued)
   – Order any report, investigation, or disclosure by the
     individual that the court believes is necessary.
   – Consider any filings submitted by the victim or
     victims.
   – Decide whether to issue the certificate within 60 days
     after the court receives the application. (Court may
     extend beyond 60 days upon the applicant’s
     request.)
• CQEs: Denial
• If a court denies an application for a CQE, the
  court must provide written notice of the denial to
  the offender.
• Following a denial, the court may place
  conditions on reapplication.
• A person denied a CQE by a court may appeal
  to the court of appeals. The court’s denial will
  be reviewed under an abuse of discretion
  standard.
• CQEs: Immunity
Like the certificate of achievement and
  employability, the CQE affords employers
  who rely upon it immunity in negligent
  hiring actions and qualified immunity in
  negligent retention lawsuits filed against
  them on the basis of acts committed by
  their employee-certificate holders.
• CQEs: Revocation
A CQE is presumptively revoked if the
  certificate holder, after receiving the
  certificate, is convicted of any felony
  offense.
• Senate Bill 337 prohibits the following agencies from
  denying licenses on the basis of a prior criminal history,
  unless the offense is a “disqualifying offense” or crime
  of moral turpitude.
  (1) Ohio Optical Dispensers Board
  (2) Registrar of Motor Vehicles (with respect to motor vehicle
  salvage dealers, motor vehicle auctions, and salvage motor
  vehicle pools)
  (3) Construction Industry Licensing Board
  (4) Hearing Aid Dealers and Fitters Licensing Board
  (5) Public Safety (with respect to private investigators and
  security guards)
• Definitions
“Disqualifying offense” is defined as “an offense that is a felony and
    that has a direct nexus to an individual’s proposed or current field of
    licensure, certification, or employment.”
Crime of “moral turpitude” is defined as:
(1) Aggravated murder or murder, or complicity to commit aggravated
    murder or murder.
(2) Any sexually oriented offense.
(3) Any first or second degree offense of violence.
(4) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit or complicity in committing any
    of the offenses listed in (1) through (3), above, if the attempt,
    conspiracy, or complicity is an F1 or F2.
• Exception: The licensing board or agency
  may exercise discretion in denying the
  license, even if the conviction was for an
  offense other than a disqualifying offense
  or crime of moral turpitude if:
  o The applicant was convicted of a
   misdemeanor less than one year or a felony
   less than 3 years prior to the date of the
   application.
• Conditional Licenses
Senate Bill 337 authorizes a licensing
  agency to issue a conditional license,
  certification, or permit that lasts for one
  year, after which time the conditional
  license, certification, or permit becomes
  permanent.
• Trainee Licenses
Senate Bill 337 specifies that no agency that
  issues a trainee license may issue that
  license to an applicant who would not be
  eligible for issuance of a license,
  certificate, registration, permit, card, or
  other authority to engage in the profession
  or operation for which the trainee would
  apply.
• Definition of “Trainee License”
A license, certificate, registration, permit,
  card, or other authority that is issued by
  any licensing agency that authorizes the
  holder to engage as a trainee in a
  profession, occupation, or occupational
  activity, or to operate as a trainee certain
  specific equipment, machinery, or
  premises.
• State Board of Cosmetology-specific
  provisions
(1) Senate Bill 337 prohibits the Board from
  denying certification on the basis of prior
  incarceration or conviction for a crime.
(2) Senate Bill 337 requires the Board to
  assist ex-offenders and military veterans
  who hold licenses to find employment.
• Casino Control Commission-specific provisions
(1)Requires the Commission to provide a written statement to
   each applicant who is denied a license that describes the
   reason(s) for the denial.
(2)Requires that, not later than January 31 in each calendar
   year, the Commission provide to the General Assembly and
   the Governor a report that, for each type of license issued
   under the Casino Control Law, specifies the number of
   applications made in the preceding calendar year for each
   type of such license, the number of applications denied in the
   preceding calendar year for each type of such license, and
   the reasons for those denials.
• Under prior law, an individual could not
  petition his or her sentencing court to have
  the record of a criminal conviction sealed
  unless the individual was a first offender
  (i.e., the individual could have no more
  than one felony or misdemeanor
  conviction in any jurisdiction in the
  country).
• Senate Bill 337 expands eligibility for record sealing to
  offenders who satisfy one of the following conditions:
  (1) The offender has no more than one felony
  conviction;
  (2) The offender has no more than two misdemeanor
  convictions if the convictions are not for the same
  offense; or
  (3) The offender has not more than one felony
  conviction and not more than one misdemeanor
  conviction.
• As a general rule, the records of
  convictions involving child victims cannot
  be sealed. This has been interpreted as
  including convictions for nonsupport.
• Senate Bill 337 removes the prohibition
  against sealing the records of nonsupport
  convictions, provided that the offender
  applying for sealing otherwise qualifies to
  have the records sealed.
• Imputed Income: Generally
When a parent’s income is determined as
  part of the child support calculation, the
  court or child support enforcement agency
  (CSEA) must consider not only the
  parent’s gross income, but also any
  potential income that is imputed to a
  parent who is voluntarily unemployed or
  underemployed.
• Imputed Income: Current Interpretation

Ohio appellate courts have generally held
 that a parent’s incarceration constitutes
 voluntary unemployment or
 underemployment.
• Imputed Income: New Exclusion
Senate Bill 337 prohibits a court or CSEA from determining that a
  parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and from
  thereby imputing income to that parent if the parent is incarcerated
  or institutionalized for a period of 12 months or more with no other
  available assets.
EXCEPTIONS: This requirement does not apply if the parent is
  incarcerated for an offense relating to the abuse or neglect of a child
  who is the subject of the support order or criminal offense when the
  obligee or a child who is the subject of the support order is a victim
  of the offense. Further, this requirement does not apply if its
  application would be unjust or inappropriate and therefore not in the
  best interests of the child.
• Imputed Income: Current Factors
In determining imputed income, current law
  requires the court or CSEA to consider a number
  of factors, including, but not limited to, the
  parent’s employment history; the parent’s
  education, mental, and physical disabilities; the
  parent’s social skills and training; and the
  parent’s increased earning capacity because of
  experience.
• Imputed Income: New SB 337 Factor

Senate Bill 337 includes an additional factor
 in determining imputed income: the
 parent’s decreased earning capacity
 because of a prior felony conviction.
• Discretionary Disregard of Additional
  Income
Senate Bill 337 specifies that a court or CSEA may
  disregard a parent’s additional income from
  overtime or additional employment when the
  court or CSEA finds that the additional income
  was generated primarily to support a new or
  additional family member or members, or under
  other appropriate circumstances.
• Multiple Orders
Senate Bill 337 provides that if both parents involved in the
  immediate child support determination have a prior order
  for support for a minor child or children born to both
  parents, the court or CSEA must collect information
  about the existing order or orders and consider those
  together with the current support calculation to ensure
  that the total of all orders for all children of the parties
  does not exceed the amount that would have been
  ordered if all children were addressed in a single judicial
  or administrative proceeding.
• Certain DUS Violations-Penalty Reductions
Senate Bill 337 specifies that if a person is
  convicted of DUS and the suspension was
  imposed for one of a number of offenses in
  which driving was not one of the main elements
  of the offense, the offense is an unclassified
  misdemeanor (same as existing law) on a first
  offense and an M4 on a third or subsequent
  offense within three years (lowered from an M1).
• DUS Penalty Reductions (continued):
Applies to the following DUS offenses:
(1) Disposition of an unruly child.
(2) Possession, use, purchase, or receipt of cigarettes or
    other tobacco products by child.
(3) Failure to appear in court to answer a citation issued for
    any of a number of specified minor misdemeanors.
(4) Being in default or noncompliance with child support
    order.
(5) Violation of certain provisions relating to beer or
    intoxicating liquor.
• DUS Penalty Reductions (continued):
(6) Failure to appear to answer a charge alleging a specified motor
    vehicle operation or equipment violation or a general motor vehicle-
    related violation, or to pay a fine imposed for such violation.
(7) Use of a fictitious or altered driver’s license or a driver’s license
    belonging to another person by a person under 21 in order to
    purchase beer or intoxicating liquor.
The bill eliminates all other penalties that previously applied to DUS
    based upon offenses (1) through (7), above, including filing proof of
    financial responsibility with the court, restitution, an additional
    suspension, and immobilization or forfeiture of the vehicle.
• Financial Responsibility Violations/Nonpayment of
  Judgment
Senate Bill 337 provides that if a person is convicted of
  DUS and the suspension was imposed for violating the
  state financial responsibility law, the offense is an
  unclassified misdemeanor on a first offense (same as
  existing law) and an M4 on a third or subsequent offense
  within three years (lowered from an M1). The bill
  eliminates all other penalties that currently apply to the
  offense, including filing proof of financial responsibility
  with the court, restitution, an additional suspension, and
  immobilization or forfeiture of the vehicle.
• Community Service in Lieu of Suspension
For the following offenses, Senate Bill 337 provides that the court, in lieu of
    imposing a suspension, may order community service:
(1) Soliciting.
(2) Theft of gasoline from a retail seller.
(3) Illegal conveyance of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance into a school
      safety zone.
(4) Consumption of beer or intoxicating liquor in a motor vehicle by a person
      under 18.
(5) Giving false information in order to purchase beer or intoxicating liquor by a
      person under 21.
(6) Trafficking in cigarettes while using a motor vehicle.
In addition, for the offenses listed in (1), (4), (5), and (6), above, Senate Bill 337
      changes the mandatory suspension that applied under prior law to
      discretionary suspensions.
• Nonsupport-Related Suspensions: Limited
  Driving Privileges
Senate Bill 337 permits a court, in connection with a
  contempt action filed against a person for failure to
  pay support, to grant limited driving privileges to a
  person whose driver’s license is suspended by the
  Registrar of Motor Vehicles because the Registrar
  received a notice from a CSEA indicating that the
  person is in default or noncompliance under a child
  support order.
• Reinstatement Fees
Senate Bill 337 permits the Registrar of Motor
  Vehicles, with approval from the Director of
  Public Safety, to adopt rules that permit a person
  to pay reinstatement fees in installments.
(Senate Bill 337 maintains a provision in current
  law, which allows courts to permit individual
  offenders to pay driver’s license reinstatement
  fees in installments.)
• Financial Responsibility Provisions
Senate Bill 337 eliminates the requirement that the
  Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspend the driver’s
  license of any person who is named in a motor
  vehicle accident report that alleges that the
  person was uninsured at the time of the accident
  and then fails to give the Registrar acceptable
  proof of financial responsibility.
• Financial Responsibility Provisions (continued)
Senate Bill 337 modifies some of the civil penalties that apply to a
    person who does not maintain proof of financial responsibility:
(1) Subject to (2) and (3), below, changes the period of suspension from
    a Class E (three months) to a Class F (until conditions are met) and
    also eliminates a provision that conditions limited driving privileges
    on the presentation of proof of financial responsibility and payment
    of all fees owed to the Registrar.
(2) Does not change the civil penalties that apply with respect to a
    person whose operating privileges are again suspended and license
    again impounded for such a violation, within five years of the
    violation.
(3) Authorizes a court to grant limited driving privileges to offenders
    described in (2), above.
• Fifteen-Plus Year License Suspensions
Senate Bill 337 provides a new set of circumstances that a person whose
  driver’s license has been suspended for life (Class 1) or for a period in
  excess of 15 years (Class 2) may demonstrate to the court in order to
  be granted a modification or termination. The bill authorizes
  modification or termination for offenders who demonstrate that they
  have not had a moving violation within five years; have not committed a
  vehicular homicide or manslaughter; and, in the preceding five years,
  have not violated a suspension. As under preexisting law, the offender
  must also have proof of insurance. If the suspension was imposed for
  an OVI, the offender must also have completed a treatment program
  and, for the past 15 years, the person has not been found guilty of any
  alcohol-related or drug-related offense. (Prior law required that the
  offender not have any felony conviction within the preceding 15 years.)
• Motor Vehicle Equipment Violations
The bill lowers the penalties for the following
  offenses, establishing each as a minor
  misdemeanor in all circumstances:
(1)Driving or moving a vehicle or combination of
   vehicles in a manner that endangers any
   person. (Under prior law, the offense was a
   MM on a first violation and M3 on each
   subsequent violation.)
• Motor Vehicle Equipment Violations
Lowered Penalties—MM in all circumstances (continued):
(2) Operating on the public roads a vehicle that is registered in Ohio
   and does not conform to the statutory provisions or rules governing
   the height of bumpers or modifying a vehicle in a dangerous
   manner. (Under prior law, the offense was a MM on a first violation
   and M3 on each subsequent violation.)
(3) Certain motor vehicle equipment violations and all other motor
   vehicle equipment violations for which no penalty was otherwise
   provided. (Under prior law, the offenses for which the penalties
   were lowered were previously MM’s on a first violation, M4’s on a
   second violation within one year of the first violation, and M3’s on
   each subsequent violation within one year after the first violation.)
• BMV Amnesty Study Committee
Senate Bill 337 requires the Department of Public
  Safety to conduct a study on the advisability and
  feasibility of establishing in Ohio a one-time
  amnesty program for the payment of fees and
  fines owed by persons who have been convicted
  of motor vehicle traffic and equipment offenses
  or have had their driver’s licenses suspended
  for any reason.
• Places of Detention: Age Thresholds
Prior law authorized juvenile courts to order
  the confinement of persons adjudicated a
  delinquent child after turning 18 in places
  other than those authorized solely for
  confinement of children. Senate Bill 337
  increases the threshold age to 21.
• Places of Detention: New Hearing Procedure
Senate Bill 337 specifies that any person whose
  case is transferred to another court for criminal
  prosecution or any person who has reached the
  age of 18 but not attained 21 may be held in a
  place other than those authorized solely for the
  confinement of children only if, after a hearing,
  the juvenile court finds by a preponderance of
  the evidence that the youth is a threat to the
  safety and security of the facility.
• Places of Detention: Hearing Factors
Factors serving as evidence that a youth is a threat to safety and
   security include, but are not limited to:
(1)The youth has injured or created imminent danger to the life
   or health of another youth or staff member by violent
   behavior;
(2)On more than one occasion, the youth escaped from the
   facility or program in which the youth is being held.
(3)The youth established a pattern of disruptive behavior by
   written record that the youth’s behavior is not conducive to
   the established policies and procedures of the facility or
   program where the youth is being held.
• Places of Detention: Review Hearings
If the juvenile court determines that a place other
    than those generally considered to be for the
    placement of children is appropriate, the person
    may petition the juvenile court for a review hearing
    30 days after the initial confinement decision, 30
    days after any subsequent review hearing, or at
    any time after the initial confinement decision upon
    an emergency petition by the youth due to the
    youth facing imminent danger.
• Sealing Juvenile Records
Prior law prohibited the sealing of records of
  a juvenile adjudication for committing
  aggravated murder, murder, rape, sexual
  battery, or gross sexual imposition (GSI).
  Senate Bill 337 removes sexual battery
  and GSI from the list of offenses for which
  the records may not be sealed.
• Sealing Juvenile Records: Application
  Process
Senate Bill 337 reduces from two years to
  six months the period of time that must
  elapse following the termination of a
  juvenile court order or discharge from
  DYS, as the case may be, before a person
  may apply to the juvenile court for sealing
  of the record of the adjudication.
• Sealing Juvenile Records: Criminal
  Records Checks
Senate Bill 337 excludes most juvenile proceedings
  and adjudications from criminal records checks.
  Exception: The bill permits the release of
  information pertaining to juvenile adjudications
  under which the juvenile court, pursuant to a return
  bindover, imposed an SYO disposition upon the
  person for aggravated murder, murder, or a sex
  offense for which the person is required to register.
• Moving the “have you been
  convicted of a crime?” box on
  state applications – a
  collaboration between DRC and
  DAS
• Online database about the civil impact of
  criminal convictions.
• The website provides an online database
  and search tools that allow users to learn
  about the collateral consequences of a
  conviction in Ohio.
• Using the CIVICC database, you can:
  (1) Look up a criminal offense and find out what legal
  barriers are likely to apply in addition to the sentence.
  (2) Look up a particular right or privilege and find out
  what type of criminal conviction might block a convicted
  person from enjoying it.
  (3) Search for all of the legal side effects of a certain
  type, such as all of the barriers to employment in a
  particular field.
• The database can be found at: opd.ohio.gov/CIVICC/
        CONTACT


       Andre R. Imbrogno
       Ohio Parole Board
andre.imbrogno@odrc.state.oh.us
• QUESTIONS

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:3/27/2013
language:Latin
pages:79
celeste bertha celeste bertha not not
About good girl,haha