Title: Thompson v. Gansheimer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Thompson v. Gansheimer, 116 Ohio St.3d 349, 2007-Ohio-6666.] 
 
 
THOMPSON, APPELLANT, v. GANSHEIMER, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Thompson v. Gansheimer, 116 Ohio St.3d 349, 2007-Ohio-6666.] 
A violation of the statutory requirement to convey a convicted felon to prison 
within five days after sentencing is not cognizable in habeas corpus. 
(No. 2007-1398 ─ Submitted December 12, 2007 ─ Decided  
December 19, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, 
No. 2006-A-0086, 2007-Ohio-3477. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a writ of habeas corpus.  
Because a violation of the statutory requirement to convey a convicted felon to 
prison within five days after sentencing is not cognizable in habeas corpus and 
neither invalidates the sentence nor entitles the prisoner to release from sentences 
for other crimes, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} In July 2004, after a jury convicted appellant, Ramon Thompson, 
of drug possession, preparation of drugs for sale, and possessing criminal tools, 
the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas sentenced him to an aggregate 
prison term of 17 months.  One month later, in a separate criminal case, the 
common pleas court sentenced Thompson to an aggregate ten-year prison term on 
his convictions for felonious assault with firearm specifications and having 
weapons while under disability.  In 2005, the common pleas court sentenced 
Thompson to six months in prison upon his guilty plea to a drug-possession 
charge. 
{¶ 3} In December 2006, Thompson filed a petition in the Court of 
Appeals for Ashtabula County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Lake Erie Correctional Institution Warden Rich Gansheimer, to release him from 
prison.  Thompson claimed that he was not conveyed to prison within five days 
after his 17-month prison sentence was imposed, as required by R.C. 2949.12, and 
that this defect affected the trial court’s jurisdiction to sentence him in the other 
cases.  The warden submitted a motion for summary judgment, which included 
evidence that Thompson is currently incarcerated on only his ten-year prison 
sentence.  In July 2007, the court of appeals granted the warden’s motion and 
denied the writ. 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Thompson asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in denying the writ of habeas corpus.  He relies on R.C. 2949.12, which 
provides that “[u]nless the execution of sentence is suspended, a convicted felon 
who is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in a state correctional 
institution shall be conveyed, within five days after sentencing, excluding 
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, by the sheriff of the county in which the 
conviction was had to the facility that is designated by the department of 
rehabilitation and correction for the reception of convicted felons.” 
{¶ 5} For the following reasons, Thompson’s assertion lacks merit. 
{¶ 6} First, any claimed failure to convey Thompson to prison within the 
five-day period following sentencing provided in R.C. 2949.12 is not cognizable 
in habeas corpus.  See Norton v. Green (1962), 173 Ohio St. 531, 535, 20 O.O.2d 
148, 184 N.E.2d 401, construing the similarly worded General Code provision. 
{¶ 7} Second, “[t]he requirements of R.C. 2949.12 are merely directory 
in nature and may not be used to invalidate a defendant’s sentence or prevent its 
enforcement.”  State v. Vaughn (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 775, 786, 667 N.E.2d 
82; see also Ex Parte Silverman (1942), 69 Ohio App. 128, 133, 23 O.O. 555, 42 
N.E.2d 87, construing the General Code provision.  In fact, in his petition, 
Thompson conceded that R.C. 2949.12 is not mandatory. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 8} Finally, even assuming the invalidity of Thompson’s 17-month 
sentence, he is not entitled to the writ, because he is incarcerated on his ten-year 
sentence, for which he does not claim any R.C. 2949.12 defect.  “Where a 
petitioner is incarcerated for several crimes, the fact that the sentencing court may 
have lacked jurisdiction to sentence him on one of the crimes does not warrant his 
release in habeas corpus.”  Swiger v. Seidner (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 685, 687, 660 
N.E.2d 1214; see also Haynes v. Voorhies, 110 Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355, 
852 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 7. 
{¶ 9} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Ramon Thompson, pro se. 
 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________