Case Title: Hanes v. Haviland

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1589

Docket Number: 20010792

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-10-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Hanes v. Haviland, 93 Ohio St.3d 465, 2001-Ohio-1589] 
 
 
HANES, APPELLANT, v. HAVILAND, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Hanes v. Haviland (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 465.] 
Habeas corpus sought to compel relator’s release from prison — Dismissal of 
petition affirmed, when. 
(No. 01-792 — Submitted September 19, 2001 — Decided October 17, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-01-15. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In December 1989, appellant, Leonard N. Hanes, was 
convicted of felonious assault and sentenced to a prison term of six to fifteen 
years. 
 
In February 2001, Hanes filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Allen 
County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, James 
S. Haviland, to release him from prison.  Hanes claimed that his accumulated 
“good time” credits under, inter alia, R.C. 2967.193 and former R.C. 2967.19, 
142 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3100, 3115, entitled him to release from prison on May 4, 
2000, i.e., before the expiration of the maximum term of his sentence.  In March 
2001, the court of appeals dismissed Hanes’s petition. 
 
In his appeal of right, Hanes contends that the court of appeals erred in 
dismissing his petition. 
 
Hanes’s contention is meritless.  Former R.C. 2967.19 et seq. does not 
reduce the maximum term of his indeterminate sentence, and these provisions 
consequently do not entitle Hanes to release from prison before he serves the 
maximum term provided in his sentence.  See State ex rel. Bealler v. Ohio Adult 
Parole Auth. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 36, 740 N.E.2d 1100, 1101; State ex rel. 
Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 425, 427, 687 N.E.2d 
283, 284-285. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
At best, even if Hanes is entitled to good-time credit, he would have been 
entitled to earlier consideration of release on parole rather than outright release 
from prison.  Because extraordinary relief in habeas corpus is restricted to 
immediate release from confinement, the court of appeals properly dismissed the 
petition.  See Douglas v. Money (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 348, 349-350, 708 N.E.2d 
697, 698.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Leonard N. Hanes, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Bruce D. Horrigan, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________