Case Title: Jones v. Foley

Citation: 2022-Ohio-2551

Docket Number: 2022-0212

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2022-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Jones v. Foley, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2551.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-2551 
JONES v. FOLEY, WARDEN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Jones v. Foley, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2551.] 
Habeas corpus—Petitioner not entitled to writ because he has not served his 
maximum prison sentence—Writ denied. 
(No. 2022-0212—Submitted May 27, 2022—Decided July 28, 2022.) 
IN HABEAS CORPUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Petitioner, Michael Jones, an inmate at the Grafton Correctional 
Institution (“GCI”), has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against 
respondent, Keith Foley, who is the warden at GCI.  We ordered Foley to file a 
return of writ.  166 Ohio St.3d 1466, 2022-Ohio-1163, 185 N.E.3d 105.  Based on 
the evidence in the record, we deny the writ. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
Background 
{¶ 2} In 1982, Jones pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition 
in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-173927.  The trial court sentenced Jones in that case to 
a prison term of two to five years but suspended the sentence and placed Jones on 
probation for three years. 
{¶ 3} In March 1983, Jones pleaded guilty to rape and felonious assault in 
Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-178371.  In April 1983, the trial court sentenced Jones in 
that case to prison “for a term of six (6) years to twenty-five (25) years [for the rape 
offense] and for a term of five (5) years to fifteen (15) years [for the felonious-
assault offense], concurrent.”  As a result of those new offenses, Jones was found 
to have violated the terms of his probation in the 1982 case, Cuyahoga C.P. No. 
CR-173927, and was resentenced in that case to the five-year prison sentence that 
had been suspended. 
{¶ 4} In 1991, Jones was indicted on charges of kidnapping and attempted 
rape in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-268188.  In November 1991, he pleaded guilty in 
that case to attempted rape and was sentenced to a prison term of 3 to 15 years. 
{¶ 5} In his petition, Jones alleges that in each of the cases, the trial court 
ordered all his sentences to be served concurrently.  According to Jones, if he 
“served the maximum sentence with everything running concurrent and including 
good time credited, he would have been released in 2007.”  He asserts, however, 
that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Ohio Adult 
Parole Authority are keeping him in prison because they believe that the trial courts 
ordered his sentences to be served consecutively, for an aggregate prison term of 
9.5 to 45 years. 
Legal analysis 
{¶ 6} To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must show that 
he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty and that he is entitled to immediate 
release from prison or other confinement.  R.C. 2725.01; State ex rel. Cannon v. 
January Term, 2022 
 
3 
Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10.  “A writ of 
habeas corpus ‘will lie only to challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing court.  
R.C. 2725.05.  The few situations in which habeas corpus may lie to correct a 
nonjurisdictional error are those in which there is no adequate remedy at law.’ ”  
Kneuss v. Sloan, 146 Ohio St.3d 248, 2016-Ohio-3310, 54 N.E.3d 1242, ¶ 6, 
quoting Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio-3719, 996 N.E.2d 
919, ¶ 9.  An inmate who has served his maximum term may be entitled to a writ 
of habeas corpus.  See State ex rel. Oliver v. Turner, 153 Ohio St.3d 605, 2018-
Ohio-2102, 109 N.E.3d 1204, ¶ 17. 
{¶ 7} In 1982, Jones received a five-year suspended sentence in Cuyahoga 
C.P. No. CR-173927, which he concedes was converted into an actual five-year 
prison sentence the following year.  The 1983 sentencing entry in Cuyahoga C.P. 
No. CR-178371 imposed two sentences, one for rape and one for felonious assault, 
and it ordered those sentences to be served concurrently as to one another.  But 
contrary to Jones’s allegation, the 1983 sentencing entry in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-
178371 did not even mention the sentence imposed in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-
173927, much less order that the sentences in the newer case be served concurrently 
with any sentence from any earlier case. 
{¶ 8} When Jones reoffended while he was on probation in Cuyahoga C.P. 
No. CR-173927, R.C. 2929.41(B) stated: “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 a probationer, parolee, 
or escapee.”  Former R.C. 2929.41(B), Am.Sub.S.B. No. 1, 139 Ohio Laws, Part I, 
1, 19.  Because Jones was a probationer at the time that he reoffended, “his 
sentences ran consecutively by operation of the statute.”  State ex rel. Smith v. 
Schweitzer, 153 Ohio St.3d 232, 2018-Ohio-2396, 103 N.E.3d 816, ¶ 7.  Thus, after 
combining the sentences imposed in the 1982 and 1983 cases, Jones was subject to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
a maximum aggregate prison term of 30 years, which would have expired around 
2012. 
{¶ 9} The same analysis applies to the 3- to 15-year sentence imposed on 
Jones in 1991 for attempted rape.1  In his return of writ, Foley shows that Jones was 
released on parole under yet another case in February 1989.  He committed the 
1991 offense (attempted rape) while he was on parole, so his sentences run 
consecutively by operation of law.  Adding Jones’s 1991 prison sentence of 3 to 15 
years to his prior sentences yields a maximum aggregate prison term of 45 years, 
which will not expire until at least 2026.  Because he has not served his maximum 
prison sentence, Jones is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 10} For the reasons stated above, we deny the petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Michael Jones, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney 
General, for respondent. 
_________________ 
 
1.  Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2, which changed the law governing concurrent and consecutive sentences, did 
not become effective until July 1, 1996.  See 146 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 7136, 7502-7503, 7810.  
Under current law, all sentences of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the sentencing 
judge makes certain findings, including a finding that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect 
the public or to punish the offender.  R.C. 2929.41(A); R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); State v. Bonnell, 140 
Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37.  The fact that a defendant was on probation 
or parole for a prior offense at the time of the new offense is now only one factor that a court may 
cite as a ground for imposing consecutive sentences, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), not a circumstance that 
requires consecutive sentences.