By JOHN McCARTHY, Associated Press Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The role the courts play in enforcing the law is at the heart of a dispute the Ohio Supreme Court heard this week over whether a man returned to prison for breaking his parole -- even though he was never told at trial about the conditions -- should be released.

Henry Hernandez's lawyer said the inmate should be freed because the judge in his case did not include post-release supervision by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority in the order that sent Hernandez to prison in the first place.

Despite not knowing at trial that he would be under state supervision, Hernandez was told of the rules upon his release, said his lawyer, John Parker. Parole officials learned that Hernandez traveled to Texas and associated with a convicted felon without notifying the officials and failed to notify them he had been detained by police while there, all violations of his supervision.

Hernandez, 33, of Cuyahoga County, was released last year after serving seven years for cocaine possession. He has been in the Lorain Correctional Institution since October serving a 160-day sentence.

A decision in Hernandez's favor could require the state to review the sentences of more than 5,000 felons imprisoned under the same sentencing statute, passed in 1996, Attorney General Jim Petro's office said.

A lawyer representing the state said the law specifically states that Hernandez, convicted of a first-degree felony, be under the parole authority's control for five years after his release.

Scott Criss, an assistant Ohio attorney general, acknowledged that the trial court erred by not ensuring in its order that Hernandez be subject to post-relief supervision. But he said the law requiring such supervision supersedes the court order.

''He has not served his full sentence, according to that statute,'' Criss told the court. ''There is no ambiguity in that statute.''

Justice Paul Pfeifer wondered why the prosecutor didn't just say, ''Judge, you've left out our piece of the pie, we can correct it.''

Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger suggested the defense attorney at trial, who was not Parker, might have shared fault for not noticing the absence of post-release information.

Parker said if the state found a problem with the judge's sentencing order, it should have appealed it but did not.

Parker said the number of sentences the state may have to review if the court rules in Hernandez's favor is irrelevant. -->