Opinion

State ex rel. Rankin v. Mohr

  • 130 Ohio St. 3d 400
  • 2011 Ohio 5934
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Nov 23, 2011
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Cupp, Lanzinger, Lundberg, McGee, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Pfeifer, Stratton
Cited by
11 cases
Authority
More cited than 75.3%

The opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Rankin v. Mohr, 130 Ohio St.3d 400, 2011-Ohio-5934.]

THE STATE EX REL. RANKIN, APPELLANT, v. MOHR, DIR., APPELLEE.

[Cite as State ex rel. Rankin v. Mohr, 130 Ohio St.3d 400, 2011-Ohio-5934.]

Court of appeals’ judgment denying request for writ of mandamus affirmed.

(No. 2011-0997—Submitted November 16, 2011—Decided November 23, 2011.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Highland County, No. 10CA9.

__________________

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”), to recalculate the expiration of his stated prison term by crediting

each of his concurrent prison terms with 734 days.

{¶ 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

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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.

__________________

Robert Rankin, pro se.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jason Fuller, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

______________________

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.