Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Jerome Thompson’s habeas corpus petition and the warden’s summary judgment. The court held that sentences imposed for felonies committed while Thompson was on parole were required to run consecutively to his original sentence under former R.C. 2929.41(B)(3), and that the sentencing entries did not expressly provide otherwise.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sentences imposed for felonies committed while Thompson was on parole were required to run consecutively to his original 1979 sentences under former R.C. 2929.41(B)(3).
- Whether the later sentencing entries independently required the later sentences to run concurrently with the original sentences.
Holdings
- Under former R.C. 2929.41(B)(3), sentences for new felonies committed while the defendant was on parole had to be served consecutively to the sentence for which the defendant was on parole.
- The later sentences were consecutive to the original 1979 sentences because the sentencing entries did not specifically state that they were concurrent with the original sentences.
Key quotations
“A sentence of imprisonment shall be served consecutively to any other sentence of imprisonment, in the following cases: *** (3) When it is imposed for a new felony committed by the probationer, parolee, or escapee.” (¶ 8)
“Inasmuch as making sentences for different crimes run concurrently is in the nature of a reward to the convict, * * * it follows that a positive act is required on the part of the sentencing court to cause sentences to run concurrently; and * * * if the entry is silent as to how sentences shall run, it is presumed such sentences will run consecutively.” (¶ 9)
Factual background
Thompson was sentenced in 1979 to concurrent terms of four to twenty-five years for aggravated robbery and two to fifteen years for felonious assault, and he was paroled in 1980. After being declared a parole violator, he returned to prison and received additional felony sentences in 1983 and 1985. The later sentencing entries expressly made some sentences concurrent with each other or with a previously imposed sentence, but did not expressly make them concurrent with the original 1979 sentences.
Procedural history
Thompson filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the consecutive service of sentences imposed after he violated parole. The Ninth District Court of Appeals granted the warden's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.