Johnson v. Eckle

Ohio Supreme Court

Johnson v. Eckle

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 291

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 31, 1961·No. No. 36695·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A parole violator is not entitled to credit for the period of his declared violations. Consequently, petitioner has not served the maximum sentence imposed and, therefore, is not entitled to his release by habeas corpus.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Radcliee and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radcliee, 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 period of his declared violations. Consequently, petitioner has not served the maximum sentence imposed and, therefore, is not entitled to his release by habeas corpus.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Radcliee and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radcliee, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

Johnson v. Eckle, 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 291 (Ohio 1961).

Pincite

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 291 (Johnson v. Eckle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.