State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr (Slip Opinion)
120 N.E.3d 776
| Ohio | 2018Background
- Larry Cannon pled guilty in 2009 in Summit County to multiple theft offenses and received consecutive definite terms totaling 4½ years; in 2010 he pled guilty in two Cuyahoga County cases and received an aggregate 2-year sentence to run concurrently with the Summit County sentence.
- On Aug. 17, 2017 Cannon filed a habeas-corpus petition in the Third District seeking immediate release, claiming he had completed those sentences by July 28, 2014.
- Respondents (Mohr et al.) moved to dismiss, arguing procedural defects and that Cannon remained incarcerated on other convictions with a maximum term extending to July 12, 2032.
- The court of appeals dismissed the petition chiefly because Cannon failed to attach all commitment papers as required by R.C. 2725.04(D), and the record showed additional indefinite sentences and parole revocations that precluded release.
- Cannon appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed the court of appeals: the petition was procedurally defective and failed to establish entitlement to immediate release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with R.C. 2725.04(D) — attachment of commitment papers | Cannon provided sentencing entries for the Summit and two Cuyahoga cases and argued that showed completion of those terms. | Respondents argued Cannon failed to attach all pertinent commitment and parole-revocation records required to evaluate custody. | Court held Cannon failed to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D); missing commitment papers fatally defective his petition. |
| Entitlement to immediate release | Cannon argued his sentences at issue had expired and he was not subject to parole supervision or further confinement on those matters. | Respondents showed additional convictions, parole revocations, and indefinite sentences that extended incarceration beyond the dates Cannon claimed. | Court held the record did not support immediate release; other convictions and revocations meant he remained lawfully detained. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Finfrock v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 80 Ohio St.3d 639, 687 N.E.2d 761 (1998) (commitment papers required to show custody and entitlement to release)
- Cook v. State, 150 Ohio St.3d 96, 79 N.E.3d 516 (2016) (failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D) is fatal to a habeas petition)
- Leyman v. Bradshaw, 146 Ohio St.3d 522, 59 N.E.3d 1236 (2016) (plaintiff must show unlawful restraint and entitlement to immediate release)