Inmates Challenge Law That Could Keep Them Locked Up Longer

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio prison officials shouldn’t be able to extend certain inmates’ time behind bars because the law that enabled that is unconstitutional, attorneys for two imprisoned men argued Wednesday before the state Supreme Court.

At issue is part of a 2019 law that lets Ohio’s Department of Rehabilitation and Correction argue for the parole board to keep some felony offenders in prison past the minimums of their sentence ranges due to bad behavior or indications they haven’t been rehabilitated.

The law, which the state defends as constitutional, was named for Reagan Tokes, a college student abducted, raped and murdered by a man on parole in 2017.

Two men imprisoned in cases unrelated to that crime are contesting the law. Christopher Hacker is serving time for aggravated burglary, and Danan Simmons Jr. was sentenced on weapon and drug charges.

A previous ruling in a different case allowed offenders like them to challenge the law even before DRC officials might move to extend their sentences. The outcome of their cases could impact dozens more, as the high court is holding more than 60 cases until it decides these challenges.

Hacker and Simmons argue the provision violates the constitutionally outlined separation of powers between the judicial branch, which issues sentences, and the executive branch, which includes the prisons department. They say the provision allows the executive branch to act as prosecutor, judge and jury, and infringes on the right to a fair trial by not ensuring protections such as the right to an attorney during proceedings about extending a sentence.