Case ID: ohio-st-3d_122/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Durain, Appellant, v. Sheldon, Warden, Appellee.
    [Cite as Durain v. Sheldon, 122 Ohio St.3d 582, 2009-Ohio-4082.]
    (No. 2009-0424
    Submitted August 11, 2009
    Decided August 19, 2009.)
    Robert Durain, pro se.
    Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of appellant, Robert Durain. “If an offender is subject to more than one period of post-release control, the period of post-release control for all of the sentences shall be the period of post-release control that expires last, as determined by the parole board or court. Periods of post-release control shall be served concurrently and shall not be imposed consecutively to each other.” R.C. 2967.28(F)(4)(c). In addition, insofar as Durain claims that his sentencing entry violated Crim.R. 32, which would render it nonappealable, his remedy is not immediate release from prison pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus. See Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 364, 2008-Ohio-4565, 894 N.E.2d 312, ¶ 10.

Judgment affirmed.

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