Legal Opinion

Crist v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1966No. 40471PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. People v. OlingerColorado Court of Appeals · 1977
  2. State v. WilliamOhio Court of Appeals · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API