[Cite as Johnson v. Jenkins, 2016-Ohio-7899.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ROSS COUNTY 

Dwayne Johnson, #716-257, :

 : 

Petitioner, : Case No. 16CA3567 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

Charlotte Jenkins, Warden, : 

Chillicothe Correctional Institution, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

 Respondent. : RELEASED: 11/18/16

 : 

______________________________________________________________________

APPEARANCES: 

Dwayne Johnson, Chillicothe Correctional Institute, Chillicothe, Ohio, Pro se. 

Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

HOOVER, J., 

 Dwayne Johnson filed a habeas corpus petition seeking his immediate release 

from the Chillicothe Correctional Institution. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss under 

Civ.R. 12(B)(6) arguing that Johnson’s petition should be dismissed because he is not 

entitled to habeas corpus relief to challenge the calculation of jail-time credit. 

 Johnson filed a memorandum in opposition in which he concedes that he filed a 

motion for jail-time credit in the trial court, but he contends that the trial court failed to 

apply the total number of jail time credit and has failed to rule on his motion. 

 Because habeas corpus does not lie to challenge the calculation of jail-time 

credit, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 
Ross App. No. 16CA3567 2 

I. 

 Johnson filed a habeas corpus petition on August 24, 2016 in which he claims 

that in May 2015 he was convicted and sentence to 18 months in prison for having 

weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). 

 Johnson contends that he was entitled to jail-time credit and that he filed a 

motion with the trial court seeking to have 106 days of jail-credit applied, but the trial 

court has failed to rule on his motion. He argues that when his jail-time credit is 

considered, his maximum sentence expired on August 4, 2016. 

 Respondent argues that the petition should be dismissed because habeas 

corpus does not lie to challenge the calculation of jail-time credit. Johnson has a 

remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal or motion for jail-time credit. 

II. 

 Habeas corpus petitions are governed by R.C. 2725. They are available to a 

person who is “unlawfully restrained of his liberty . . . to inquire into the cause of such 

imprisonment, restraint, or deprivation.” R.C. 2725.01. An individual may petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus if his maximum sentence has expired and he is being held 

unlawfully. State v. Wilburn, 4th Dist. No. 98CA47, 1999 WL 1281507 (Dec. 22 1999); 

Frazier v. Strickrath, 42 Ohio App.3d 114, 115-116 (4th Dist. 1988). 

 “Habeas corpus does not lie to challenge the calculation of jail-time credit when 

the petitioner has an adequate remedy by appeal to raise the issue.” Johnson v. 

Crutchfield, 140 Ohio St.3d 485, 2014-Ohio-3653, 20 N.E.3d 676, ¶ 6. A petitioner also 

has an adequate remedy to challenge a jail-time credit calculation by a motion for jail-
Ross App. No. 16CA3567 3 

time credit. State ex rel. Williams v. McGinty, 129 Ohio St.3d 275, 2011-Ohio-2641, 951 

N.E.2d 755, ¶ 2. 

 Because Johnson has an adequate remedy by appeal or by a motion for jail-time 

credit, habeas corpus does not lie to challenge the jail-time credit. 

III. 

 We GRANT Respondent’s motion to dismiss and DISMISS this habeas corpus 

petition under Civ. R. 12(B)(6). 

 The clerk shall serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record at their last 

known addresses. The clerk shall serve petitioner by certified mail, return receipt 

requested. If returned unserved, the clerk shall serve petitioner by ordinary mail. 

 PETITION DISMISSED. COSTS TO PETITIONER. SO ORDERED. 

Abele, J. and McFarland, J.: Concur. 

FOR THE COURT 

_____________________________ 

Marie Hoover 

Judge 

NOTICE 

 This document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for 

appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk. 

 Pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B), the clerk is ORDERED to serve notice of the 

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal on all parties who are not in 

default for failure to appear. Within three (3) days after journalization of this entry, 

the clerk is required to serve notice of the judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B), and 

shall note the service in the appearance docket.