State ex rel. Herring v. Wainwright (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4521

In 1993 Herring was sentenced to 8–25 years for felonious assault; his latest possible release then was April 3, 2018.
He was paroled twice (1999, 2006) and thereafter convicted for additional offenses in 2001 and 2008.
2001: three-year term for abduction plus a mandatory three-year firearm-specification term; the entry ordered the firearm term consecutive to the 2001 base sentence but said nothing about the 1993 sentence.
2008: aggregate 30-month term for new offenses including a mandatory one-year firearm-specification term; the entry ordered the firearm term consecutive to the 2008 base offenses but was silent about the 1993 sentence.
Herring filed a habeas petition in 2019 claiming that, because the 2001 and 2008 entries did not reference the 1993 sentence, those later sentences (including firearm specifications) should run concurrently with the 1993 sentence and he should have been released in January 2019.
The Third District granted summary judgment for the warden; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding the mandatory firearm-specification terms run consecutively by operation of former R.C. 2929.14(E)(1)(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statutory presumption that multiple sentences run concurrently applies to mandatory firearm-specification terms, so that the silent 2001 and 2008 entries should produce concurrent service with the 1993 sentence	Herring: Silence in the 2001/2008 entries means concurrent service under R.C. 2929.41(A); BSC improperly made firearm terms run consecutively, entitling him to immediate release	Wainwright: Former R.C. 2929.14(E)(1)(a) mandated that mandatory firearm-specification terms be served consecutively to any other prison term; the BSC did not increase his sentence	Court: Firearm-specification terms run consecutively by statute despite sentencing-entry silence; Herring is not entitled to immediate release

Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614 (2001) (habeas available only in extraordinary circumstances)
State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene, 84 Ohio St.3d 165 (1998) (writ proper if petitioner entitled to immediate release)
Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (2011) (appellate review of summary-judgment dismissal in habeas is de novo)
State ex rel. Oliver v. Turner, 153 Ohio St.3d 605 (2018) (silence in sentencing entry causes base sentences to run concurrently under R.C. 2929.41(A))
State ex rel. Smith v. Schweitzer, 153 Ohio St.3d 232 (2018) (firearm-specification terms operate under statutory consecutive requirement)
State ex rel. Thompson v. Kelly, 137 Ohio St.3d 32 (2013) (courts may not avoid statutory consecutive requirement for firearm specifications)