Crist v. Maxwell
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The basic contention of petitioner is that under the provisions of Section 2901.11, Revised Code, a sentence for escape must be served at the end of any existing confinement, and that by incarcerating him on bis escape sentence the state terminated bis 1956 sentence.
*30That part of Section 2901.11, Revised Code, upon which petitioner relies, reads as follows:
“* * * Sneh additional imprisonment shall be served at the conclusion of any existing confinement of such violator.”
That statute relates to existing confinement. Confinement connotes detention in a penal institution. Although one on parole…
2Cited by2 opinions
- People v. OlingerColorado Court of Appeals · 1977
- State v. WilliamOhio Court of Appeals · 1990