Per Curiam.
Petitioner's sole contention in the present case is that his Ohio sentence has expired, the time of maximum sentence having passed, so that he is now entitled to release. He bases this contention on two grounds.
First, one of fact. He alleges that he was notified by the Ohio authorities in either late 1952 or early 1953 that he was being restored to parole, and that his time spent in the Michigan Penitentiary would apply to his Ohio sentence...
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.
