State ex rel. Thompson v. Kelly, 137 Ohio St. 3d 32

Thompson pled guilty in 1979 to aggravated robbery and felonious assault, receiving 4–25 and 2–15-year terms; he was paroled in 1980.
He was declared a parole violator by 1982 and returned to prison in 1983, where he later received additional sentences.
In 1983 and 1985 Thompson received new sentences for crimes committed while on parole (aggravated robberies and involuntary manslaughter)
The 1983 sentences were labeled as running concurrently with each other, not with Thompson’s 1979 sentence.
The central question is whether post-parole sentences must run consecutively to Thompson’s original sentence or concurrently, affecting his release date (May 4, 2010 vs. May 4, 2029).
The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth District’s grant of summary judgment for the warden, holding the post-parole sentences run consecutively, and Thompson’s habeas petition was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing for post-parole convictions	Thompson argued all post-parole sentences ran concurrently	Kelly contended post-parole sentences run consecutively under former RC 2929.41(B)(3)	Post-parole sentences run consecutively; judgment affirmed.

State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174 (2008-Ohio-1983) (consecutive sentences require a positive act; silence implies consecutively running)
Stewart v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 180 (1963) (concurrent sentences require positive action by the sentencing court)