Opinion ID: 3179828
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: {¶ 2} In 2006, Lockhart was convicted of one count of rape and three counts of gross sexual imposition (“GSI”), involving a single victim under the age of ten. He was sentenced to life in prison for the rape conviction and four years for each of the three GSI convictions; the sentence for one of the GSI convictions was imposed to be served concurrently with the life sentence, and the sentences for the other two GSI convictions were imposed to be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to the life sentence. Lockhart filed an appeal of his convictions, but he did not specifically challenge his sentence in that appeal. In January 2008, the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. State v. Lockhart, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 06CAA100080, 2008-Ohio-57. We declined review. 118 Ohio St. 1434, 2008-Ohio-2595, 887 N.E.2d 1203. {¶ 3} In December 2009, the trial court sua sponte issued a nunc pro tunc judgment entry that included a case history as required by State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163. The entry made no substantive changes to Lockhart’s sentence. Lockhart has filed various motions, appeals, and other actions in state courts challenging his sentence, all of which were unsuccessful. See State v. Lockhart, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 13 CAA 01 0007, 2013-Ohio-3441, ¶ 6-11. He also filed a habeas corpus action in federal court that was dismissed. Lockhart v. Welch, S.D.Ohio No. 2:09-CV-443, 2011 WL 378905 (Feb. 3, 2011). {¶ 4} Lockhart filed this original action for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of appeals in January 2015. He asserts that he is entitled to a parole hearing or to be released because he has already served eight years and because his sentence has been incorrectly calculated as 18 years to life when it should be eight years to life. He claims that an entry on the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 2 January Term, 2016 Correction’s website shows that the Bureau of Sentence Computation has imposed an additional ten years on his sentence. In dismissing the petition, the court of appeals noted that Lockhart has not challenged the sentencing court’s jurisdiction. It also recognized that his arguments fail to take into account that he received a sentence of life imprisonment for his rape conviction and found that because he “is not immediately entitled to release from prison,    habeas relief is not appropriate.” 2015-Ohio-1569, ¶ 8, 10.