Johnson v. Moore (Slip Opinion)
149 Ohio St. 3d 716
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Ronald G. Johnson was on parole from an indefinite 7–25 year sentence imposed in 1987 when he was arrested in 2005 and later convicted on multiple new offenses across several counties, resulting in an aggregate definite 12-year sentence.
- The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) applied BOSC computations that ran the 12-year definite term prior to the 7–25 year indefinite term, producing a maximum-release date in 2024.
- Johnson filed a habeas corpus petition seeking immediate release, arguing the DRC improperly added the post-parole 12-year term consecutively to his 1987 sentence in violation of double jeopardy and asserting due-process and equal-protection defects for lack of an on-site hearing after the 2005 arrest.
- He attached sentencing entries from multiple counties and a 2007 BOSC letter showing the computed maximum release date (August 27, 2024 as of the letter).
- The Twelfth District dismissed his petition on res judicata grounds because Johnson had filed a similar petition earlier in Warren County; the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed dismissal but on the ground that the petition failed to state a cognizable habeas claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DRC’s computation running the 12‑year definite term consecutively to the 7–25 year indefinite term violated double jeopardy and entitles Johnson to immediate release | Johnson: DRC improperly ran the new 12‑year term consecutive to the 1987 indefinite term, causing extended incarceration and violating double jeopardy; he would have been released by Oct. 10, 2015 but for the computation | Warden/DRC: The administrative computation follows applicable rules; the definite term is served before the indefinite term per Ohio law and administrative code, producing a later maximum release date | Denied — court held petition fails to state a habeas claim; administrative rule requires serving the definite term first, so maximum expiration is 2024 and immediate-release claim is unripe |
| Whether procedural defects (no on-site hearing) after 2005 arrest violate due process | Johnson: DRC violated due process by taking him into custody without a required on-site hearing | Warden: Such procedural complaints are not cognizable in a habeas corpus action seeking immediate release | Denied — due-process claim not cognizable in habeas corpus |
| Whether DRC’s computation violates equal protection | Johnson: Equal-protection violation asserted generally | Warden: Equal-protection is not a basis for habeas relief here | Denied — equal-protection claim not cognizable in habeas corpus |
| Proper procedural basis for dismissal (res judicata vs. failure to state a claim) | N/A | Court of appeals dismissed on res judicata grounds | Supreme Court: Although dismissal on res judicata was error, the judgment is affirmed because the petition fails to state a viable claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefferson v. Bunting, 14 N.E.3d 1036 (Ohio 2014) (Civ.R. 12(B) defenses scope)
- State ex rel. Gilmore v. Mitchell, 714 N.E.2d 925 (Ohio 1999) (affirming correct judgment despite erroneous rationale)
- Jackson v. Johnson, 986 N.E.2d 989 (Ohio 2013) (due-process claims not cognizable in habeas corpus)
- Elersic v. Wilson, 805 N.E.2d 1127 (Ohio 2004) (double-jeopardy claims not cognizable in habeas corpus)
- Thomas v. Huffman, 703 N.E.2d 315 (Ohio 1998) (equal-protection claims not cognizable in habeas corpus)