Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Ohio Supreme Court, 1961

Brinson v. Sacks

Brinson v. Sacks
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided May 10, 1961 · Bell, Fourth, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Place, Radcliff, Stead, Taft, Weygandt, Zimmerman
172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 256

Brinson v. Sacks

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

A parole violator is not entitled to credit for the periods of his declared violations, and, therefore, petitioner has not served the maximum sentence imposed and is not entitled to his release by habeas corpus. Ex parte Gosier, 171 Ohio St., 403; Rigg v. Correction Dept., Parole Board Div., 170 Ohio St., 347.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taft, Matthias, Bell, Radcliff and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radcliff, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑