State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

Henderson asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ. Henderson contends that ODRC improperly modified his court-ordered reformatory sentence by refusing to consider him for parole after thirty-eight months of prison. Henderson’s contention is meritless for the following reasons.

First, as the court of appeals correctly noted, in 1987, prior to Henderson’s becoming eligible for parole consideration, the General Assembly eliminated the *268distinction between penal institutions and reformatory institutions. R.C. 5120.03(B) (“The director of rehabilitation…