State ex rel. Rankin v. Mohr

2011 Ohio 5934, 130 Ohio St. 3d 400
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 23, 2011
Docket2011-0997
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 2011 Ohio 5934 (State ex rel. Rankin v. Mohr) 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
State ex rel. Rankin v. Mohr, 2011 Ohio 5934, 130 Ohio St. 3d 400 (Ohio 2011).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, Robert Rankin, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Gary Mohr, the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), *401 to recalculate the expiration of his stated prison term by crediting each of his concurrent prison terms with 734 days.

Robert Rankin, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jason Fuller, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 2} The ODRC director had no duty to reduce Rankin’s Highland County 13-year sentence by the number of days that Rankin was confined for other crimes before he received the 13-year sentence. R.C. 2967.191 provides: “The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the stated prison term of a prisoner * * * by the total number of days that the prisoner was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced * * The fact that the Highland County court ordered that Rankin’s 13-year sentence be served concurrently with his prior sentences does not affect our determination that Rankin is not entitled to a reduction of his 13-year sentence. See generally State v. Parsley, Franklin App. No. 01AP-612, 2010-Ohio-1689, 2010 WL 1510197, ¶ 48-50. Our holding in State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, 883 N.E.2d 440, does not require a different result, because in that case, the defendant was held on each of the charges before his sentencing, and he was thus entitled to a reduction of each concurrent prison term. Id. at ¶ 17-18.

{¶ 3} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Cherry
2025 Ohio 1152 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Hubbard
2025 Ohio 831 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Houston
2025 Ohio 370 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State ex rel. Moody v. Dir., Ohio Bur. of Sentence Computation
2024 Ohio 1891 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Dyer
2022 Ohio 1519 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State v. Wisniewski
2021 Ohio 3031 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
State v. Breneman
2016 Ohio 597 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State v. Ogletree
2015 Ohio 4715 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2015)
State v. Simmons
2013 Ohio 5282 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2011 Ohio 5934, 130 Ohio St. 3d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-rankin-v-mohr-ohio-2011.