[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. H unley v. Wainwright , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-803.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are req uested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographic al or other formal errors in the opini on, in order that corrections m ay be made before the opi nion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2021-O HIO -803
T HE S TATE EX REL
. H UNLEY , A PPELLANT , v . W AINWRIGHT , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Hunley v. Wainwright , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-803.] Habeas corpus—Inmate has not yet comp leted his lawfully imposed sentences— Court of appeals’ dismis sal of petition affirmed. (No. 2020-1151—Submitted Janua ry 26, 2021—Decided March 18, 202 1.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals fo r Marion County, No. 9-20-15.

_______________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Harold Hunley, an inm ate at the Marion Correctional Institution, appeals the Third District Court of Appeals’ judgm ent dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus against appellee, Warden L yneal Wainwright.
We affirm.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Background {¶ 2} In 1989, Hunley was sentenced to a prison term of 3 to 15 years for robbery. {¶ 3} Hunley was paroled in 1992. Later that year, he was convicted of a second robbery and was sentenced t o another prison term of 3 to 15 years for that offense. Although the 1992 sentencing entry did not refer to h is 1989 sentence, the parties agree that by operation of law, the sentences were to be served consecutively. 1 At that time, Hunley’s maximum prison sentence would have expired on January 27, 2019. {¶ 4} Hunley was paroled a second time in 1997, and in 1999, he was declared a parole violator at large. The parties agree that an additional 34 days of
“lost time” were added to his maxi mum sentence when he returned to prison. {¶ 5} Hunley was paroled a third time in 2000. In 2001, he was convi cted of felonious assault, aggravated robbery, and child endangering and sentenced to six years in prison. By that time, there was a statutory presu mption in favor of

concurrent sentences. See former R.C. 2929.41(A), Am.Sub.S.B. No. 22, 148 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 8353, 8389. Therefore, no additional time was applied to Hunley’s maximum sentence, whic h was then set to expire on Marc h 2, 2019. {¶ 6} Hunley was paroled for the fourth and final time in 2007. In 2 008,
he was convicted and sentenced to ten months in prison for forg ery, two six-year terms for robbery, and two mandatory three-year terms for relat ed firearm specifications. The sentencing court ordered the forgery and r obbery sentences to run concurrently with one anothe r but consecutively to the fire arm-specification sentences. The court also ordered the firearm-specification se ntences to run

1. At the time Hunley was sentenced in 1992, R.C. 2929.41(B)(3 ) provided that the sentence imposed for any new felony committed by a parolee was to run co nsecutively to any other sentence of imprisonment. See Am.Sub.S.B. No. 258, 143 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1308, 1438.January Term, 2021

3 consecutively to each other. The sentencing entries did not re fer to Hunley’s prior
criminal sentences. {¶ 7} In May 2020, Hunley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpu s against Wainwright in the Third District. He alleged that the 2008 sentencing
court did not order him to serve his firearm-specification sent ences consecutively to his 1989 and 1992 robbery sentences and that he should have been released from prison on December 13, 2019. {¶ 8} Wainwright moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that (1) Hunl ey could have challenged his senten ces by directly appealing them and (2) the two mandatory three-year terms impos ed for the 2008 firearm specifi cations added six years to Hunley’s maximum sentence, thereby extending his relea se date into 2025. The court of appeals granted Wainwright’s motion and dis missed Hunley’s petition. Hunley appealed to t his court as of right. Analysis {¶ 9} A writ of habeas corpus “is warranted in certain extraordinary circumstances ‘where there is an unlawful restraint of a person ’s liberty and there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.’ ” Johnson v. TimmermanCooper , 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 616, 757 N.E.2d 1153 (2001), quoting Pegan v.
Crawmer , 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 99, 666 N.E.2d 1091 (1996). The writ is ap propriate if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Smirnoff
v. Greene , 84 Ohio St.3d 165, 167, 702 N.E.2d 423 (1998). We review de novo the court of appeals’ dismissa l of a habeas corpus petition. State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright , 158 Ohio St.3d 20, 2019-Ohio-4138, 139 N.E.3d 867, ¶ 5. {¶ 10} The court of appeals held that Hunley is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus for two reasons: (1) he could have challenged his sentences by directly appealing them and (2) he is not entitled to immediate release, because by operation of R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a), the three-year sentences fo r his firearmS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 specifications must be served consecutively to each other and t o his 1989 and
1992 sentences. {¶ 11} The court of appeals’ first rati onale is not correct. It is tr ue that the sentencing errors of a court of c ompetent jurisdiction are not cognizable in habeas

corpus. E.g. , State ex rel. Wynn v. Baker , 61 Ohio St.3d 464, 465, 575 N.E.2d 208 (1991). However, the court of appeals misconstrued Hunley’ s claim. Hunley does not argue that his 2008 sentencing entries are erroneous; he contends that the Bureau of Sentence Computation improperly modified those entrie s when it ran the sentences for his 2008 firearm specifications consecutively to his 1989 and 1992 sentences. Hunley could not have asserted this claim in a direct appeal, because it did not arise from the 2008 sentencing entries thems elves. See State ex
rel. Oliver v. Turner , 153 Ohio St.3d 605, 2018-Ohio-2102, 109 N.E.3d 1204, ¶ 12. Therefore, the only issue in this case is whether certai n sentences Hunley received in 2008—namely, his two mandatory firearm-specificatio n sentences— are to run consecutively to his 1989 and 1992 sentences. {¶ 12} As the parties agree, Hunley was to serve his 2001 and 2008 sentences for robbery and forgery concurrently with his 1989 an d 1992 sentences. R.C. 2929.41(A) creates a presumption that multiple sentences o f imprisonment imposed on an offender “shall be s erved concurrently.” Therefo re, the sentencing court’s silence concerning the 1989 and 1992 sentences caused t he 2001 and 2008 sentences for robbery and forgery to run concurrently by operat ion of law. Oliver at ¶ 10. {¶ 13} Hunley contends that the same r ule applies to his 2008 mandator y firearm-specification sentences . But R.C. 2929.41(A) states th at a presumption favoring concurrent sentences applies “[e]xcept as provided in” R.C. 2929.14(C). 2

2. At the time of Hunley’s 2008 sentences, R.C. 2929.41(A) mad e an exception for sentences imposed under former R.C. 2929.14(E) (now R.C. 2929.14(C)), see Am.Sub.H.B. No. 490, 149 Ohio Laws, Part V, 9484, 9691, and R.C. 2929.14(E)(1)(a) (now R .C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a)) referredJanuary Term, 2021

5 And R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a) provides that if a mandatory prison t erm is imposed under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a) (for having a firearm while committ ing a felony), “the offender shall serve any mandatory prison term imposed * * * consecutively to any other prison term or mandatory prison term previously or subsequently imposed upon the offender.” Therefore, Hunley’s 2008 firearm-s pecification sentences run consecutively to his 1989 and 1992 sentences and extend his release
date into 2025. See State ex rel. Herring v. Wainwright , __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020- Ohio-4521, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 9. {¶ 14} Because Hunley will not complete his lawfully imposed sentences until 2025, he is not entitled to immediate release. We theref ore affirm the court of appeals’ judgment dismissi ng Hunley’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

_________________ Harold Hunley, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Atto rney General, for appellee.

_________________

to sentences imposed for firearm specifications under former R. C. 2929.14(D) (now R.C. 2929.14(B)), see 2007 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10.