From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crist v. Maxwell, Warden

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 28, 1966
222 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio 1966)

Opinion

No. 40471

Decided December 28, 1966.

Habeas corpus — Arrest for investigation while on parole — Violation of escape statute — Sentence — Section 2901.11, Revised Code — "Existing confinement" construed.

IN HABEAS CORPUS.

This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court.

In 1956, petitioner, while represented by counsel, was convicted of forgery and was placed on probation. In 1957, after a hearing at which he was again represented by counsel, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to the Ohio State Reformatory. Petitioner was paroled in 1960. In 1961, while at large on parole, he attempted to escape from the county jail where he was being held for investigation of rape and kidnapping.

Petitioner was indicted and found guilty of a violation of the escape statute and on July 10, 1961, was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary. On July 21, 1961, he was declared a parole violator as to his 1956 conviction. The escape sentence terminated on July 9, 1966, and he is presently being held on his 1956 conviction.

Mr. Ronald E. Crist, in propria persona. Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. William C. Baird, for respondent.


The basic contention of petitioner is that under the provisions of Section 2901.11, Revised Code, a sentence for escape must be served at the end of any existing confinement, and that by incarcerating him on his escape sentence the state terminated his 1956 sentence.

That part of Section 2901.11, Revised Code, upon which petitioner relies, reads as follows:

"* * * Such additional imprisonment shall be served at the conclusion of any existing confinement of such violator."

That statute relates to existing confinement. Confinement connotes detention in a penal institution. Although one on parole is in technical legal custody he is at large and not confined.

Confinement as used in that section relates to those situations wherein a prisoner is actually serving his sentence in a penal institution at the time of the escape. It does not apply to those situations where one on parole has been taken into custody for another offense and escapes from such custody.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Crist v. Maxwell, Warden

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 28, 1966
222 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio 1966)
Case details for

Crist v. Maxwell, Warden

Case Details

Full title:CRIST v. MAXWELL, WARDEN

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 28, 1966

Citations

222 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio 1966)
222 N.E.2d 650

Citing Cases

People v. Olinger

Accordingly, we conclude that the word "confined" in the second degree assault statute connotes detention in…