Brinson v. Sacks

Ohio Supreme Court

Brinson v. Sacks

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 256

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 10, 1961·No. No. 36829·Published

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.

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

Pincite

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 256 (Brinson v. Sacks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.