MURPHY v. MAXWELL, 176 Ohio St. 297 (1964)

199 N.E.2d 597

MURPHY v. MAXWELL, WARDEN.

No. 38662Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided May 27, 1964.

Habeas corpus — Plea of guilty — Sentenced to penitentiary and paroled — Parole violator — Release to another state for prosecution — Not waiver by releasing state of jurisdiction over prisoner — Method by which prisoner returned — Validity of imprisonment not affected thereby — Relief by habeas corpus denied.

IN HABEAS CORPUS.

This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court. In 1944, petitioner, Dennie Ray Murphy, pleaded guilty to armed

Page 298

robbery and automobile theft. He was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary for concurrent terms of 1 to 20 and 10 to 25 years. In 1951, petitioner was placed on parole. Between 1951 and 1957, he was on and off parole while at large and in and out of various jails and federal penitentiaries.

In 1957, he was returned to the Ohio Penitentiary as a parole violator. In April 1959, petitioner was again paroled from the Ohio Penitentiary, and in November 1959 he was again declared a parole violator. In December 1959, petitioner was picked up by the Ohio authorities and turned over to the Kentucky authorities on a charge of armed robbery. From petitioner’s brief it appears that he waived extradition to Kentucky. In January 1960, petitioner pleaded guilty to armed robbery in Kentucky and received a ten-year sentence. In February 1960, Ohio placed a detainer on him. In September 1963, petitioner was paroled by the Kentucky authorities, subject to the Ohio detainer. According to the evidence, petitioner waived extradition to Ohio, and on October 2, 1963, he was returned to the Ohio Penitentiary where he is presently incarcerated.

Mr. Dennie Ray Murphy, in propria persona.
Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. William C. Baird, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

As nearly as can be determined from petitioner’s brief and argument, he is contending that Ohio waived its right to imprison him further when he was released to Kentucky in 1959 for prosecution by that state, and that he was returned from Kentucky to Ohio illegally.

So far as the claim of petitioner that Ohio lost its rights over him when he was released to Kentucky is concerned, this argument is not well taken. It is now well established that the release of an accused or a parolee by one sovereignty to another, so that the receiving sovereignty may enforce its criminal laws against him, neither estops the releasing state nor constitutes a waiver of jurisdiction over the accused or parolee

Page 299

which will prevent the releasing state from subsequently either enforcing a previously imposed sentence or subjecting the accused or parolee to further criminal proceedings. Guerrieri v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St. 40; and Heston v. Green, Supt., 174 Ohio St. 291.

In relation to petitioner’s argument that his return to Ohio from Kentucky was illegal, the evidence shows that he waived extradition.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O’NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.