Cox v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Cox v. Maxwell

205 N.E.2d 17, 1 Ohio St. 2d 111, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 431, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 576

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 3, 1965

DocketNo. 39216

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 205 N.E.2d 17 (Cox v. Maxwell) 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

Cox v. Maxwell, 205 N.E.2d 17, 1 Ohio St. 2d 111, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 431, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 576 (Ohio 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is petitioner’s contention that his sentence has expired, a full 15 years having passed since he was sentenced. He argues that the parole commission does not have the power to increase his sentence. The parole commission does not increase sentences. In cases such as this it determines how much time an individual has lost while at large as a parole violator and determines when he will be considered again for parole. The sentence of one convicted of a felony has a definite minimum and maximum. Unless granted a final release, one convicted must serve the maximum sentence imposed either by actual incarceration in prison or under technical custody on parole. Where one on parole violates his parole and is declared a parole violator his sentence ceases to run until he is available for return. Armstrong v. Haskins, Supt., 176 Ohio St. 422; and Cline v. Haskins, Supt., 175 Ohio St. 480.

Thus, petitioner’s sentence has not expired although more than 15 years have elapsed since the imposition thereof. He has not been in either actual or constructive custody during this entire period. According to the records, petitioner was at large as a parole violator for more than four years. During this period, while he was at large as a parole violator, his sentence ceased to run and he is not entitled to credit on his sentence for such time.

Petitioner’s sentence not having expired, his argument is not well taken.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

It is petitioner’s contention that his sentence has expired, a full 15 years having passed since he was sentenced. He argues that the parole commission does not have the power to increase his sentence. The parole commission does not increase sentences. In cases such as this it determines how much time an individual has lost while at large as a parole violator and determines when he will be considered again for parole. The sentence of one convicted of a felony has a definite minimum and maximum. Unless granted a final release, one convicted must serve the maximum sentence imposed either by actual incarceration in prison or under technical custody on parole. Where one on parole violates his parole and is declared a parole violator his sentence ceases to run until he is available for return. Armstrong v. Haskins, Supt., 176 Ohio St. 422; and Cline v. Haskins, Supt., 175 Ohio St. 480.

Thus, petitioner’s sentence has not expired although more than 15 years have elapsed since the imposition thereof. He has not been in either actual or constructive custody during this entire period. According to the records, petitioner was at large as a parole violator for more than four years. During this period, while he was at large as a parole violator, his sentence ceased to run and he is not entitled to credit on his sentence for such time.

Petitioner’s sentence not having expired, his argument is not well taken.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 N.E.2d 17, 1 Ohio St. 2d 111, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 431, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-maxwell-ohio-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack