Case Title: State ex rel. Thompson v. Kelly

Citation: 2013-Ohio-2444

Docket Number: 2013-0275

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Thompson v. Kelly, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-2444.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-2444 
THE STATE EX REL. THOMPSON, APPELLANT, v. KELLY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Thompson v. Kelly,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-2444.] 
Habeas corpus—R.C. 2929.41—Sentencing—Convictions while on parole—
Judgment granting warden’s motion for summary judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2013-0275—Submitted June 11, 2013—Decided June 18, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 12CA010276. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion 
for summary judgment of appellee, Bennie Kelly, warden of the Grafton 
Correctional Institution, and dismissing appellant Jerome Thompson’s petition for 
a writ of habeas corpus.  Thompson pled guilty to felonies in 1979 and was 
sentenced to 4 to 25 years.  He was paroled in 1980, but in 1982, he was found to 
be a parole violator, pled guilty to several more felonies, and was sentenced to 5 
to 25 years.  The dispute is whether Thompson is to serve the sentence from 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
which he was released on parole concurrently to or consecutively with the 
sentences imposed after his parole. 
{¶ 2} Because we find that the Ninth District Court of Appeals correctly 
found that his terms are to be served consecutively and therefore correctly granted 
the warden’s motion for summary judgment, we affirm. 
Facts 
{¶ 3} Jerome Thompson pled guilty in 1979 to aggravated robbery and 
felonious assault.  He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 4 to 25 years for the 
robbery and 2 to 15 years for the assault.  He was paroled in October 1980, but by 
March 1982, he had been declared a parole violator at large, and in March 1983, 
he was sent back to prison.  Later that year, Thompson pled guilty to two 
aggravated robberies and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 5 to 25 years.  In 
1985, he pled guilty to two offenses of involuntary manslaughter, with each 
conviction carrying a sentence of 6 to 25 years.  The first involuntary-
manslaughter term was ordered to be served concurrently with the aggravated–
robbery sentence, and the second involuntary-manslaughter conviction was 
ordered to be served concurrently with the first. 
Analysis 
{¶ 4} The issue in this habeas corpus case is whether the sentences 
imposed on Thompson after he had violated parole are to be served concurrently 
with or consecutively to his original 1979 sentence.  Thompson argues that all the 
sentences were to be served concurrently, that his maximum aggregate sentence 
of 25 years has expired, and that he should have been released on May 4, 2010.  
The warden argues that the sentences imposed for the convictions after 
Thompson’s parole must by statute be served consecutively to his original 
sentence, making his release date May 4, 2029. 
{¶ 5} The Court of Appeals for the Ninth District agreed with the warden 
and, without referring to the judgment entries specifically, found that former R.C. 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
2929.41(B)(3) required the sentences to be served consecutively.  The court 
granted his motion for summary judgment.  Thompson has appealed to this court. 
{¶ 6} The warden relies on the version of R.C. 2929.41(B)(3), 
Am.Sub.H.B. No. 511, 134 Ohio Laws, Part II, 1866, 1985-1986, in force at the 
time Thompson was sentenced.  That statute required that sentences for new 
felonies committed while on parole were to be served consecutively to the 
sentence for which a defendant was on parole. 
{¶ 7} Thompson argues that the trial court imposed concurrent sentences 
and that the warden cannot rely on the statute to disregard the court’s order.  He 
also argues that the language of the statute was a directive to courts and confers 
no authority on the warden to correct a mistake made by the sentencing court. 
{¶ 8} Thompson’s arguments are without merit.  The version of R.C. 
2929.41 that was in effect in 1983 and in 1985 stated that sentences for crimes 
committed while on parole must be served consecutively to sentences for crimes 
committed before the parole violation: 
 
 
(B)  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 the 
probationer, parolee, or escapee. 
 
134 Ohio Laws, Part II, at 1985-1986. 
{¶ 9} Moreover, we have held that a positive act on the part of the 
sentencing court is required for sentences to run concurrently:  
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
“Inasmuch as making sentences for different crimes run 
concurrently is in the nature of a reward to the convict, * * * it 
follows that a positive act is required on the part of the sentencing 
court to cause sentences to run concurrently; and * * * if the entry 
is silent as to how sentences shall run, it is presumed such 
sentences will run consecutively.” 
 
State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174, 2008-Ohio-1983, 887 N.E.2d 328, 332, ¶ 13, 
quoting Stewart v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 180, 181, 187 N.E.2d 888 (1963). 
{¶ 10} Thus, the statute at the time required that Thompson’s sentences be 
served consecutively.  But even if it did not, the judgment entries do not support 
Thompson’s arguments.  Because the courts imposing the sentences for crimes 
committed while Thompson was on parole did not specifically state that the 
sentences were to run concurrently with Thompson’s 1979 sentence, the later 
sentences were to be served consecutively to the earlier sentence. 
{¶ 11} Thompson was originally sentenced on April 13, 1979, to 4 to 25 
years for aggravated robbery and 2 to 15 years for felonious assault.  His first 
sentence for crimes committed while he was on parole, in Cuyahoga County case 
No. CR181708, was dated May 12, 1983, and was 5 to 25 years for aggravated 
robbery “to run concurrently with Case CR-178454.”  The sentence in Cuyahoga 
County case No. CR-178454, also dated May 12, 1983, was for 5 to 25 years for 
aggravated robbery, and not surprisingly was “to run concurrently with 
CR181708.”  Neither entry indicated that the sentence was to run concurrently 
with Thompson’s 1979 sentences or any other sentence. 
{¶ 12} These first sentences refer only to each other and, under former 
R.C. 2929.41(B)(3) and Bates, they therefore must run consecutively to 
Thompson’s original sentence.  They added a term of 5 to 25 years to his total 
sentence. 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
{¶ 13} On November 28, 1983, Thompson was sentenced a third time for 
crimes committed while on parole, for involuntary manslaughter in Cuyahoga 
County, “to run concurrent with sentence previously imposed.”  His final 
sentence, for involuntary manslaughter in Mahoning County, was imposed March 
29, 1985, “to be served concurrently with sentence of Cuyahoga Co. C.P. Court 
currently being served.” 
{¶ 14} These last two sentencing entries are perhaps more ambiguous. 
However, because the first two sentences for crimes committed while Thompson 
was on parole unambiguously run concurrently only with each other, they were 
consecutive to his original sentence and added 5 to 25 years to the sentence 
imposed on Thompson prior to his parole. 
{¶ 15} We therefore affirm the judgment of the Ninth District Court of 
Appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
____________________ 
 
Jerome Thompson, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Stephanie Watson, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
________________________