Brinson v. Sacks

Ohio Supreme Court

Brinson v. Sacks

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 256

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 10, 1961

DocketNo. 36829

StatusPublished

This text of 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 256 (Brinson v. Sacks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brinson v. Sacks, 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 256 (Ohio 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinson-v-sacks-ohio-1961.