Durain v. Sheldon

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Durain v. Sheldon, 122 Ohio St.3d 582, 2009-Ohio-4082.] DURAIN, APPELLANT, v. SHELDON, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Durain v. Sheldon, 122 Ohio St.3d 582, 2009-Ohio-4082.] Habeas corpus Petition denied One term of postrelease control for multiple convictions is proper Claim that sentencing entry violated Crim.R. 32 does not entitle petitioner to immediate release from prison pursuant to writ of habeas corpus. (No. 2009-0424 Submitted August 11, 2009 Decided August 19, 2009.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-08-64. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of appellant, Robert Durain. If an offender is subject to more than one period of post-release control, the period of post-release control for all of the sentences shall be the period of post-release control that expires last, as determined by the parole board or court. Periods of post-release control shall be served concurrently and shall not be imposed consecutively to each other. R.C. 2967.28(F)(4)(c). In addition, insofar as Durain claims that his sentencing entry violated Crim.R. 32, which would render it nonappealable, his remedy is not immediate release from prison pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus. See Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 364, 2008-Ohio-4565, 894 N.E.2d 312, ¶ 10. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. __________________ Robert Durain, pro se. STRATTON, O CONNOR, SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. ______________________ 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.