Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Victor Bobo v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

September 29, 2011

VICTOR BOBO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio. (C.C. No. 2010-08535)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bryant, P.J.

Cite as Bobo v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.,

(ACCELERATED CALENDAR)

DECISION

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Victor Bobo, appeals from a judgment of the Ohio Court of Claims granting the summary judgment motion of defendant-appellee, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("DRC"). Plaintiff assigns a single error:

[Bureau of Sentence Computation] are liable due to failure to comply with court's journal entry to run sentence Concurrently despite Mr. Bobo's repeative complaints.

(Sic passim.)

Because the trial court properly granted summary judgment to DRC, concluding DRC held plaintiff pursuant to a valid order of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On June 24, 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint, alleging DRC falsely imprisoned plaintiff. According to the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff, at the time he was incarcerated at the Marion Correctional Institution on a separate conviction, was charged with and found guilty of possession of drugs. The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas imposed a sentence of six months to be served concurrently with the crime for which plaintiff was then incarcerated. The complaint asserts that, in response to his question, the sentencing court advised plaintiff his new sentence would not alter the May 24, 2010 release date for plaintiff's earlier conviction.

{¶3} Plaintiff's complaint alleged that, contrary to those representations, the second conviction caused plaintiff's release date to be changed to July 21, 2010; according to the allegations of the complaint, the warden informed plaintiff "the court made a mistake." (Complaint, 2.) Plaintiff asserted that, as a result of DRC's holding him beyond May 24, 2010, he suffered psychological pain and mental anguish for which he was entitled to $500 for each of the 58 days he was held beyond May 24, 2010.

{¶4} Although DRC initially responded on July 19, 2010 with a motion to dismiss, the trial court denied the motion. DRC subsequently filed an answer on September 16, 2010 and followed it with a motion for summary judgment filed on September 27, 2010.

{¶5} Attached to the summary judgment motion was the affidavit of Melissa Adams, DRC's Chief of the Bureau of Sentence Computation. Averring she had personal knowledge and was competent to testify to the facts contained in the affidavit, Adams stated that plaintiff was admitted to DRC on October 26, 2009 pursuant to a ten-month sentence imposed on a conviction for receiving stolen property in Cuyahoga County case No. CR09527085. Acknowledging plaintiff had 91 days of jail-time credit, DRC certified a release date of May 24, 2010 for that offense.

{ΒΆ6} The affidavit further states that on April 1, 2010, plaintiff was taken to court for case No. CR09532714 in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, where he received a sentence of six months for possession of drugs. The entry granted plaintiff 71 days of jail-time credit, and he received an additional 12 days conveyance time for a total of 83 days of credit. Beginning computation of his sentence on his return date from court, April 4, 2010, and applying the six-month sentence reduced by 83 days of credit, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.