To amend sections 2929.01, 2929.14, 2929.144, 2929.19, 2953.08, 2967.193, and 2967.194 of the Revised Code to require every sentence of imprisonment for a felony offense be for an indefinite period consisting of a minimum and maximum term and to change the maximum term that applies to those offenses.
HB794 would overhaul Ohio felony sentencing by making every felony prison sentence an indefinite term with both a minimum and a maximum term. The bill extends the state’s existing indefinite-sentencing framework beyond the first- and second-degree felonies covered under current law and applies it to third-, fourth-, and fifth-degree felonies as well. It also revises the formulas used to calculate the maximum term for these sentences, generally tying the maximum to the minimum term plus an additional period that varies by felony degree and by whether multiple sentences are imposed concurrently or consecutively.
The bill also updates related sentencing provisions to align with the new indefinite-sentence structure. It amends appellate review rules, sentencing-hearing requirements, and earned-credit statutes so references to a prisoner’s “stated prison term” or reductions in sentence are applied to the minimum term of an indefinite sentence. In addition, it preserves and cross-references existing mandatory prison terms, firearm and violence specifications, post-release control, and other special sentencing enhancements, while changing how those penalties fit within the new minimum/maximum framework.
HB794 would significantly change Ohio’s Revised Code sections governing felony sentencing, especially sections 2929.14 and 2929.144, by replacing definite prison terms for lower-level felonies with indefinite terms and by redefining how maximum terms are calculated. It would also amend sections governing sentencing hearings, appeals, and earned credit so that courts and the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction apply sentence reductions and release calculations to the minimum term of an indefinite sentence. The bill would affect judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, and incarcerated people serving felony sentences, particularly those convicted of third-, fourth-, and fifth-degree felonies.
The bill appears to be in an early, introduced stage with no recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, so there is no documented public sentiment from hearings or roll calls. Based on the text alone, the measure is a major sentencing-policy expansion that would likely be viewed as tough-on-crime by supporters because it broadens indefinite incarceration and preserves mandatory enhancements. At the same time, the breadth of the change suggests it could draw concern from those who favor sentencing certainty, shorter terms for lower-level felonies, or greater discretion in release timing.
The main point of contention is the bill’s expansion of indefinite sentencing to all felony levels, which would remove definite prison terms for many offenses and give the state a longer maximum exposure in a broader set of cases. Another likely area of dispute is the recalculation of maximum terms and how earned-credit, judicial release, and post-release control rules would operate under the new framework. Supporters would likely emphasize uniformity, public safety, and consistency with the current indefinite-sentencing model for higher-degree felonies, while opponents would likely focus on increased incarceration exposure, reduced predictability, and the impact on lower-level offenders.