State ex rel. Smith v. Schweitzer (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 2396

Herbert Allen Smith was convicted of kidnapping in 1977 (5–15 years) and released on parole in 1981. While on parole he committed a new felony and later was at large as a parole violator for extended periods.
In 1994 Smith pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to 6–15 years; the sentencing entry did not state whether that term was concurrent or consecutive to the earlier kidnapping sentence.
Smith was paroled again in 2005, escaped, and remained at large until returning to custody in September 2012.
In May 2017 Smith filed a habeas petition seeking immediate release, contending he had served more than his 15-year robbery term and that the robbery and kidnapping terms ran concurrently; he argued the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction unlawfully extended his confinement by treating the terms as consecutive.
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, concluding the sentences ran consecutively by operation of law; Smith appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith's robbery sentence and earlier kidnapping sentence run concurrently or consecutively	Smith: sentences ran concurrently; DOC unlawfully extended his term by treating them as consecutive	State: under the statute in effect when the robbery was sentenced, sentences for new felonies committed while on parole run consecutively as a matter of law	The sentences ran consecutively by operation of statute; habeas relief denied

State ex rel. Thompson v. Kelly, 137 Ohio St.3d 32 (2013) (holding that consecutive sentences for offenses committed while on parole were mandatory)