From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ryder v. Perini

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 8, 1969
251 N.E.2d 608 (Ohio 1969)

Opinion

No. 69-361

Decided October 8, 1969.

Criminal law — Serving sentence — Time at large as parole violator — Time of imprisonment not reduced thereby — Habeas corpus.

IN HABEAS CORPUS.

Mr. Bernard L. Ryder, in propria persona. Mr. Paul W. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. James S. Rood, for respondents.


This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court.

On June 28, 1962, petitioner pleaded guilty to grand larceny and to making and issuing checks with intent to defraud, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of one to seven years in the penitentiary. He began serving his terms on July 3, 1962, which would cause his maximum sentence to expire on July 3, 1969.

However, petitioner has twice been paroled and declared a parole violator. He was at large as a parole violator on his first parole for 61 days and on his second parole for 181 days. He thus has lost 242 days which causes his maximum sentence to terminate in January 1970.

It is petitioner's position that the parole board had no right to extend his sentence and that it did so by adding his lost time to the normal expiration date of his sentence.

The parole board did not increase petitioner's sentence. Petitioner was obligated to serve a maximum of seven years under his sentence. His sentence was not running while he was at large as a parole violator. See Section 2967.15, Revised Code; Cox v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 111; Cline v. Haskins, 175 Ohio St. 480.

The parole board properly extended the time for petitioner's release.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

TAFT, C.J., MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, SCHNEIDER, HERBERT, DUNCAN and CORRIGAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ryder v. Perini

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 8, 1969
251 N.E.2d 608 (Ohio 1969)
Case details for

Ryder v. Perini

Case Details

Full title:RYDER v. PERINI, SUPT., MARION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Oct 8, 1969

Citations

251 N.E.2d 608 (Ohio 1969)
251 N.E.2d 608

Citing Cases

In re Little

This analysis has been uniformly accepted for escaped parolees. See, e.g., Rogoway v. Warden, 122 F.2d 967…

Hignite v. Cardwell

Thus, the parole board did not extend his sentence; it merely changed his date of release to comply with the…