Pewitt v. Superintendent, Lorain Correctional Institution

597 N.E.2d 92, 64 Ohio St. 3d 470
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 2, 1992
DocketNo. 91-988
StatusPublished
Cited by128 cases

This text of 597 N.E.2d 92 (Pewitt v. Superintendent, Lorain Correctional Institution) 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
Pewitt v. Superintendent, Lorain Correctional Institution, 597 N.E.2d 92, 64 Ohio St. 3d 470 (Ohio 1992).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant argues that there was no evidence of record on which the court of appeals could have dismissed the case as moot and that, even if it is now moot, the appeal may be heard “ * * * where there remains a debatable constitutional question to resolve, or where the matter of appeal is one of great public or general interest.” (Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati [1987], 30 Ohio St.3d 28, 505 N.E.2d 966, paragraph one of the syllabus.) He claims both a statutory and constitutional right to the jail-time credit he seeks, and also claims that the matter is of great public or general interest.

In Miner v. Witt (1910), 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21, we held that an event that causes a case to become moot may be proved by extrinsic evidence outside the record. Here, the fact that appellant was released from confinement did not appear in the record or in any other cited source. However, appellant does not deny that the case is now moot because he has been released from custody. Rather, he claims a great or general public interest in the restriction imposed by the last sentence of Ohio Adm. Code 5120-2-03(C).

“Habeas corpus lies only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release upon the determination that the claim urged in the action is well founded.” Rollins v. Haskins (1964), 176 Ohio St. 394, 395, 27 O.O.2d 359, 360, 199 N.E.2d 868, moreover, we find no great public or general interest in deciding appellant’s claim that he be credited with one hundred fifty-one days jail time when he only served eighty-nine.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Damico
2025 Ohio 4968 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
S. Shore Lake Erie Assets & Operations, L.L.C. v. Johnson
2025 Ohio 4950 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Fleenor
2025 Ohio 4897 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Sancho
2025 Ohio 4717 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Costa v. O'Malley
2024 Ohio 2815 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Henderson
2024 Ohio 2312 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Quinn
2024 Ohio 2194 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Coffman
2024 Ohio 1182 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Edwards v. Wilcox
2024 Ohio 1123 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Biesiada v. N. Royalton Mayor
2024 Ohio 965 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Townhouses of Catalpa v. Griffith
2023 Ohio 2971 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
Tavenner v. Pittsfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees
2022 Ohio 4444 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
RNE Ents., L.L.C. v. Imperial Kitchen Cabinet Factory, L.L.C.
2022 Ohio 1844 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose (Slip Opinion)
2020 Ohio 1253 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2020)
Lundeen v. Turner
2020 Ohio 274 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
Crites v. Crites
2019 Ohio 1043 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
In re Affidavits for Probable Cause
2016 Ohio 856 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State ex rel. Rackley v. Sloan
2015 Ohio 2984 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2015)
State ex rel. Hawkins v. Haas (Slip Opinion)
2014 Ohio 5196 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
597 N.E.2d 92, 64 Ohio St. 3d 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pewitt-v-superintendent-lorain-correctional-institution-ohio-1992.