| On June 7, 2006, Carlos Roche of Cleveland was released from state prison in Ohio after serving a one-year sentence for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
Two days later, he checked in with his parole officer and signed some paperwork. Roche, then 40, didn’t show for his July meeting. The parole officer tried to contact him, and when that failed issued a warrant for his arrest. Roche failed to show for his August meeting, and then the parole officer notified the office of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor. Roche was indicted on November 21, 2006, and arrested a week later on charges of escape.
On June 27, 2007, Roche was convicted by a jury in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and sentenced to five years in prison.
Roche appealed. He argued that the judge who sentenced him in 2005 had not made post-conviction supervision a condition of his release. Although the judge had referred to parole when taking Roche’s guilty plea, he did not mention it when imposing his sentence. His appellate attorneys said that meant Roche wasn’t required to be under parole, had not violated any of its conditions, and had not committed a crime when he didn’t check in with the parole officer. His trial attorney on the escape charge had not raised the issue of the judge’s contrary instructions.
The Court of Appeals for Ohio’s Eighth Appellate District agreed and vacated Roche’s conviction and sentence on July 17, 2008. He was released from prison that day.
On March 30, 2009, Roche was judged to have been wrongfully imprisoned by the state of Ohio. The next month, he filed a claim for compensation with the Ohio Court of Claims, which in 2011 awarded him $41,908 for the time he spent in jail and, later, prison on the escape charge and conviction.
– Ken Otterbourg
|