From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brinson v. Sacks

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 10, 1961
175 N.E.2d 85 (Ohio 1961)

Opinion

No. 36829

Decided May 10, 1961.

Criminal law — Term of sentence — Prisoner not entitled to credit for period of parole violation.

IN HABEAS CORPUS.

Petitioner, Brinson, has invoked the original jurisdiction of this court by this proceeding in habeas corpus to obtain his release from the penitentiary.

He was indicted for larceny by trick, represented by counsel, tried to a jury, found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of from one to seven years. Petitioner was admitted to the penitentiary on December 11, 1952, released on parole, declared a parole violator, restored to parole, again declared a parole violator and returned to the penitentiary.

Petitioner's sole ground for release is his claim that his one- to seven-year sentence has expired. He contends that the times between the dates he was declared a parole violator and the dates he was returned to institutional custody should be counted as time served on his maximum sentence.

Mr. John Brinson, in propria persona. Mr. Mark McElroy, attorney general, and Mr. Aubrey A. Wendt, for respondent.


A parole violator is not entitled to credit for the periods of his declared violations, and, therefore, petitioner has not served the maximum sentence imposed and is not entitled to his release by habeas corpus. Ex parte Gosier, 171 Ohio St. 403; Rigg v. Correction Dept., Parole Board Div., 170 Ohio St. 347.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, RADCLIFF and O'NEILL, JJ., concur.

RADCLIFF, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of HERBERT, J.


Summaries of

Brinson v. Sacks

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 10, 1961
175 N.E.2d 85 (Ohio 1961)
Case details for

Brinson v. Sacks

Case Details

Full title:BRINSON v. SACKS, WARDEN

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: May 10, 1961

Citations

175 N.E.2d 85 (Ohio 1961)
175 N.E.2d 85