Chapin v. Bradley
2016 Ohio 7441
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Chapin was sentenced in Ohio in 1983 to an aggregate maximum of 28 years (4–25 years + 3 years firearm; concurrent 2–5 drug count) and received 64 days jail credit. He was paroled in August 1990.
- While on parole, Chapin committed federal crimes (armed bank robbery, escape, later assault), received federal sentences beginning in 1991, and remained in federal custody from January 1992 to December 2015 (~24 years).
- The Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) declared Chapin a parole violator effective August 9, 1991, and issued a warrant. Upon his return to Ohio custody in December 2015, the APA restored parole briefly (effective December 11, 2015) then revoked parole in January 2016 after a revocation hearing.
- The APA’s computation showed Chapin’s old max date as April 4, 2011, but added 8,889 "lost" days (Aug 9, 1991–Dec 11, 2015) under R.C. 2967.15(C)(1), producing a new max date of August 5, 2035.
- Chapin filed a habeas corpus petition seeking immediate release, arguing (1) his 28-year maximum expired in 2011 because time on parole and in federal custody should count toward his Ohio term, and (2) his federal sentence was ordered concurrent with his state sentence. The state moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time in federal custody and while on parole must be credited to Chapin's Ohio maximum | Chapin: He began serving the 28‑year Ohio term in 1983; parole time and federal incarceration count, so max expired April 4, 2011 | State: APA declared him a parole violator effective Aug 9, 1991, so under R.C. 2967.15(C)(1) time between violator declaration and return to Ohio custody is not creditable | Held for the state: R.C. 2967.15(C)(1) precludes credit for Aug 9, 1991–Dec 11, 2015; Chapin’s max has not expired |
| Whether R.C. 2967.15(C)(1) applies only to "violator at large" and not to a "parole violator" | Chapin: Statute applies only to "violator at large," so he should get credit | State: Statute applies to a "violator or violator at large"; APA declared him a "parole violator" | Held for the state: Plain language covers "violator"; APA properly applied statute |
| Whether a federal court's order that the federal sentence run concurrent with Ohio sentence requires Ohio to credit federal time | Chapin: Federal sentence was ordered concurrent, so federal time should run against Ohio sentence | State: Ohio sentence ceased to run after parole violator declaration; therefore federal time could not run concurrently for Ohio-credit purposes | Held for the state: Concurrent federal sentencing cannot circumvent R.C. 2967.15(C)(1); no credit given |
| Whether APA’s recalculation impermissibly imposed consecutive sentences or violated separation of powers | Chapin: APA’s recalculation effectively imposed consecutive sentences in violation of law | State: APA applied statutory crediting rule; it did not impose a sentence but computed credit under statute | Held for the state: Recalculation is a statutory application, not an impermissible judicial sentencing act |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Gillen v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 72 Ohio St.3d 381 (parole violator not entitled to credit for time served in another jurisdiction against Ohio sentence)
- State ex rel. Amburgey v. Russell, 139 Ohio App.3d 857 (Ohio court may refuse credit for out-of-state time where parole violator rule applies)
- Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323 (burden in habeas corpus to prove entitlement to release)
- Boles v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 339 (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) in extraordinary-relief context)
- Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 (motion to dismiss tests sufficiency of complaint)
- State ex rel. Thompson v. Kelly, 137 Ohio St.3d 32 (concurrent sentencing statute does not control APA credit calculations)