The State ex rel. Hunley v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 032019 OHSC, 2018-0972

Docket Nº:2018-0972
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:The State ex rel. Hunley, Appellant, v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Appellee.
Attorney:Harold Joseph Hunley, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Madden, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Judge Panel:O'Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Case Date:March 20, 2019
Court:Supreme Court of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

2019-Ohio-933

The State ex rel. Hunley, Appellant,

v.

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Appellee.

No. 2018-0972

Supreme Court of Ohio

March 20, 2019

Submitted January 29, 2019

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 15AP-593.

Harold Joseph Hunley, pro se.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Madden, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Harold Joseph Hunley, appeals the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals denying his petition for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo to compel the Bureau of Sentence Computation of appellee, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("DRC"), to recalculate his maximum sentence. We affirm.

Background

{¶ 2} In 1989, Hunley pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to 3 to 15 years in prison. Hunley was paroled in 1992, but later that year, he again pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to 3 to 15 years in prison. He was paroled a second time in 1997.

{¶ 3} In 2008, Hunley pleaded guilty in three separate cases in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. In these cases, the court imposed concurrent sentences of ten months in prison for forgery and two six-year terms for robbery. The trial court also sentenced Henley to two three-year prison terms for gun specifications, to run consecutively to the other sentences.

{¶ 4} On June 17, 2015, Hunley filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, arguing that his maximum sentence should expire in 2019 instead of 2025 (as DRC had calculated) because his 1989 and 1992 sentences should run concurrently. The magistrate recommended denying the writ, concluding that the two 3-to-15-year sentences were to be served consecutively. Hunley did not file objections to the magistrate's decision. The court of appeals adopted the magistrate's decision and held that DRC correctly determined that because the trial court's 1992 judgment entry is silent on the issue, it is presumed that the 1989 and 1992 sentences are consecutive.

Legal Analysis

{¶ 5} Pursuant to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP