In Re Benedict
This text of 53 N.E.2d 646 (In Re Benedict) 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.
Opinion
The sole controverted question is whether the appellant, after serving six months in the county jail, was entitled to be released under the provisions of Section 13451-9, General Code, which reads:
‘ ‘ Section 13451-9. When a fine is the whole or a part of a sentence, the court or magistrate may order that the person sentenced remain in jail until such fine and costs are paid or secured to be paid, or he is otherwise legally discharged, provided that the person so imprisoned shall receive credit upon such fine and costs, at the rate of $3.00 per day for each day’s imprisonment; provided that no commitment under this section shall exceed six months, and this section shall not affect the laws relating to workhouses.”
We are in accord with the unanimous conclusion reached by the judges of the Court of Appeals that Section 13451-9, General Code, applies only to a fine; that the sentence was proper under Section 1639-45, General Code; and that the appellant should continue to serve the time stated in the sentence imposed under the provisions of Section 1639-45, General Code.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
53 N.E.2d 646, 142 Ohio St. 632, 142 Ohio St. (N.S.) 632, 27 Ohio Op. 541, 1944 Ohio LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-benedict-ohio-1944.