Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Ohio St. 2d 3

Ryder v. Perini

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 8, 1969

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1969-10-08

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1981

3 state decisions

Relies on Cox v. Maxwell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1969-10-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court.

¶2On 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.

¶3However, 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.

¶4It 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.

¶5The 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. Raskins, 175 Ohio St. 480.

¶6*4The parole board properly extended the time for petitioner’s release.

¶7Petitioner remanded to custody.

Tart, C. J., Matthias, 0 ’Neill, Schneider, Herbert, Duncan and Corrigan, JJ., concur.
/20/ohiost2d/3 · .json · Public domain