Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

110 Ohio St. 3d 1474

Gensley v. Eberlin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 30, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 2006-08-30

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2013

10 state decisions

Relies on Hernandez v. Kelly

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-08-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1In Habeas Corpus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Upon consideration of the petition and the return of writ,

¶2IT IS ORDERED by the court that the writ be granted and that the petitioner is immediately released based upon the court’s decision in Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395, 2006-Ohio-126, 844 N.E.2d 301. “[N]othing in [the applicable version of] R.C. 2967.28 authorizes the Adult Parole Authority to exercise its postrelease-control authority if postrelease control is not imposed by the trial court in its sentence.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 18. Petitioner’s sentencing entries failed to specify that the trial court was imposing a term of postrelease control, and his sentence expired before Am.Sub.H.B. No. 137 (2006) took effect.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents and would dismiss the petition.
/110/ohiost3d/1474 · .json · Public domain