Ohio Supreme Court, 2011

State ex rel. Rankin v. Mohr

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 23, 2011 · Brown, Cupp, Lanzinger, Lundberg, McGee, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Pfeifer, Stratton

2011 Ohio 5934; 130 Ohio St. 3d 400

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Moody v. Dir., Ohio Bur. of Sentence Computation (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
State v. Cherry (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
State v. Hubbard (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
State v. Dyer (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State v. Wisniewski (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Ogletree (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
State v. Simmons (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State v. Houston (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
State ex rel. Moody v. Dir., Ohio Bur. of Sentence Computation (Ohio 2024)
State ex rel. Moody v. Dir., Ohio Bur. of Sentence Computation (Ohio 2024)
State v. Breneman (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, Robert Rankin, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Gary Mohr, the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), *401 to recalculate the expiration of his stated prison term by crediting each of his concurrent prison terms with 734 days.

Robert Rankin, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jason Fuller, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 2} The ODRC director had no duty to reduce Rankin’s Highland County 13-year sentence by the number of days that Rankin was confined for other crimes before he received the 13-year sentence. R.C. 2967.191 provides: “The department of rehabilitation and correction shall reduce the stated prison term of a prisoner * * * by the total number of days that the prisoner was confined for any reason arising out of the offense for which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced * * The fact that the Highland County court ordered that Rankin’s 13-year sentence be served concurrently with his prior sentences does not affect our determination that Rankin is not entitled to a reduction of his 13-year sentence. See generally State v. Parsley, Franklin App. No. 01AP-612, 2010-Ohio-1689, 2010 WL 1510197, ¶ 48-50. Our holding in State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, 883 N.E.2d 440, does not require a different result, because in that case, the defendant was held on each of the charges before his sentencing, and he was thus entitled to a reduction of each concurrent prison term. Id. at ¶ 17-18.

{¶ 3} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

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