Per Curiam.
The primary contention of appellant is that the imposition of the sentence for escape automatically terminated the sentence he was serving for rape.
He bases this argument on the provisions of the escape statute, Section 2901.11, Revised Code, when read in conjunction with Section 2965.35, Revised Code, relating to when one is eligible for parole when serving consecutive sentences. The pertinent parts of these sections on which appellant...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
