State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellants assert that the court of appeals erred in dismissing their mandamus actions. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the court of appeals.
Initially, as the court of appeals determined and appellants concede, Am.Sub. S.B. No. 2 expressly provides that the amended sentencing provisions do not apply to persons convicted and sentenced prior to July 1, 1996. See Section 5, *188Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 (“The provisions of the Revised Code in existence prior to July 1, 1996, shall apply to a person upon whom a court imposed a term of imprisonment prior to that date * * *„”).
Second,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State ex rel. Pirman v. MoneyOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Sperry & Hutchinson Company, Plff. In Err., VSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Brown v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- McBroom v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- People v. FloydCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- State ex rel. Alford v. WintersOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. WardOhio Court of Appeals · 1999
- State ex rel. United States Steel Corp. v. ZaleskiOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. ByrdOhio Court of Appeals · 2001
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.