Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Maynard v. Corrigan

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1998No. Nos. 97-1193 and 97-1274PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellants assert that the court of appeals erred in dismissing their mandamus complaints. They contend that the failure of appellees to adjust their sentences in accordance with the provisions of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 violated their constitutional right to equal protection, R.C. 1.58, and applicable case law. Appellants’ contentions, however, are meritless for the following reasons.

*333First, Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 does not apply to persons convicted and sentenced prior to July 1, 1996. Section 5, Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 (“The provisions of the Revised Code in existence prior to July 1, 1996, shall apply to a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State ex rel. Fain v. Summit County Adult Probation DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State v. MorrisOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  4. State v. GoodnightOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
  5. State v. BradfordOhio Supreme Court · 1978

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. CraigOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. State ex rel. Maloney v. SherlockOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  3. State Ex Rel. Strothers v. MurphyOhio Court of Appeals · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Smith v. SageOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals · 2021

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API