McIntyre v. Hooks (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3529

In 1991 McIntyre was convicted of aggravated burglary (first-degree) and felonious assault (second-degree) with firearm specifications and was sentenced to an aggregate 22–46 years.
A 1991 sentencing entry was later found noncompliant with Crim.R. 32(C)/the Baker one-document rule; this Court issued a writ of mandamus in 2015 directing the trial court to enter a final, appealable judgment.
On February 3, 2016, the trial court journalized a new sentencing entry again reflecting an aggregate 22–46 year sentence.
Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86 (effective Sept. 30, 2011) reduced maximum terms for first- and second-degree felonies (to 11 and 8 years, respectively); R.C. 1.58(B) requires imposition of reduced penalties if punishment has not already been imposed.
McIntyre filed a habeas petition arguing that no valid sentence was imposed until the 2016 entry, so he should receive the H.B. 86 maximums; the State argued sentencing errors are nonjurisdictional and not cognizable in habeas.
The Court denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss, considered the merits, and denied the writ, holding sentencing errors are not cognizable in habeas corpus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McIntyre is entitled to habeas relief because his 1991/1992 sentencing entries were invalid and therefore no punishment was "already imposed" under R.C. 1.58(B)	McIntyre: the invalid 1991/1992 entries meant no sentence was lawfully imposed until 2016, so H.B. 86’s reduced penalties apply	Hooks: the claim is a sentencing error (not jurisdictional); habeas is improper because sentencing errors aren’t cognizable and other remedies exist	Court: Denied habeas — sentencing errors are nonjurisdictional and not cognizable in habeas corpus
Whether the petitioner’s maximum sentence had expired such that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy	McIntyre: Applying H.B. 86 would reduce his maximum to 25 years, which would have expired by 2018, so his continued custody is unlawful	Hooks: Continued custody is lawful under the original lawful punishment; habeas is unavailable for this sentencing challenge	Court: Denied — petitioner did not show entitlement to immediate release; habeas inappropriate for resolving claimed sentencing error

State ex rel. McIntyre v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 45 N.E.3d 1003 (2015) (issued writ of mandamus directing trial court to render a final, appealable sentencing entry)
State ex rel. Sneed v. Anderson, 866 N.E.2d 1084 (2007) (sentencing errors are not cognizable in habeas corpus)
Wills v. Turner, 81 N.E.3d 1252 (2017) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition challenging which statutory sentencing scheme applied — sentencing claims not jurisdictional)
State v. Thomas, 70 N.E.3d 496 (2016) (if punishment is not already imposed, amended statute with lesser penalties governs sentencing)
Leyman v. Bradshaw, 59 N.E.3d 1236 (2016) (habeas corpus generally available only when petitioner’s maximum sentence has expired)
Majoros v. Collins, 596 N.E.2d 1038 (1992) (sentencing errors do not render custody jurisdictionally defective)
State v. Baker, 893 N.E.2d 163 (2008) (one-document rule for final, appealable criminal judgments)
Hammond v. Dallman, 590 N.E.2d 744 (1992) (a custodian’s motion to dismiss may be treated as a return of writ)