Johnson v. Crutchfield (Slip Opinion)
140 Ohio St. 3d 485
Ohio2014Background
- Johnson was arrested July 11, 2005 for offenses in Fayette, Adams, and Highland Counties while on parole from Montgomery County.
- He alleges in his habeas petition that he was convicted and sentenced to 11 years in those counties and that parole was revoked October 13, 2006.
- Johnson contends that time served after the July 11, 2005 arrest should credit only the Fayette/Adams/Highland charges and that jail-time credit should be calculated up to his last conviction in those counties.
- He further challenges the Department of Corrections’ aggregation of his 11-year total for Fayette/Adams/Highland with a 7-to-25-year Montgomery County sentence, claiming double jeopardy.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition; the Supreme Court affirms, holding habeas corpus is not a proper vehicle for jail-time-credit calculations or double-jeopardy claims, and Johnson is not entitled to immediate release.
- The Court notes Johnson’s record includes additional Madison County convictions (2007) and Montgomery County sentences (2007) and that several sentences were ordered consecutive, which affects his overall confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is habeas corpus proper for jail-time credit claims? | Johnson argues jail-time credit should be calculated and granted. | State contends jail-time credit claims are not properly raised in habeas corpus and may be pursued on appeal. | No; habeas is not proper for jail-time-credit calculations when an adequate appeal remedy exists. |
| Are double-jeopardy challenges cognizable in habeas corpus? | Johnson asserts aggregation equals double jeopardy. | State asserts double-jeopardy claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. | No; double-jeopardy claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. |
| Is Johnson entitled to immediate release based on the asserted sentencing aggregation? | Johnson contends the combined sentences yield 18–25 years and merit immediate release. | State argues multiple consecutive sentences prevent entitlement to immediate release. | No; Johnson is not entitled to immediate release. |
| Did the petition present a viable basis to review the aggregation of sentences? | Johnson argues the aggregation produced improper confinement terms. | State maintains the record shows consecutive terms that cannot be encompassed within the Montgomery sentence. | No; the record shows properly structured consecutive sentences; no habeas-based relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughley v. Saunders, 123 Ohio St.3d 446 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009) (habeas proper only for immediate release; jail-time-credit issues not suitable in habeas)
- Elersic v. Wilson, 101 Ohio St.3d 417 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004) (double-jeopardy claims not cognizable in habeas corpus)
- Howard v. Randle, 95 Ohio St.3d 281 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002) (double-jeopardy claims not cognizable in habeas corpus)
- Scanlon v. Brunsman, 112 Ohio St.3d 151 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006) (habeas proper where petitioner seeks immediate release)