Kaine v. Warden

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

88 Ohio St.3d 454

.]




          KAINE, APPELLANT, v. MARION PRISON WARDEN, APPELLEE.
            [Cite as Kaine v. Marion Prison Warden, 

2000-Ohio-381

.]
Habeas corpus sought to compel Marion Prison Warden to release relator from
        prison—Dismissal of petition affirmed.
        (No. 99-2103—Submitted April 11, 2000—Decided May 17, 2000.)
        APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-99-56.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On August 28, 1996, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
entered a judgment convicting appellant, Charles Kaine, of aggravated arson and
insurance fraud, and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of seven to twenty-
seven years. The common pleas court suspended execution of sentence and placed
Kaine on two-years’ probation. Although the court’s entry was dated July 29, 1996,
it was not entered as a judgment until August 28, 1996.
        {¶ 2} On July 29, 1998, the common pleas court revoked Kaine’s probation
and ordered Kaine to serve his previously suspended prison sentence. Although the
entry was dated July 22, 1998, it was not entered as a judgment until July 29, 1998.
        {¶ 3} In September 1999, Kaine filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for
Marion County for a writ of habeas corpus. Kaine claimed that he was entitled to
release from prison because his probationary period had already expired by the time
the trial court revoked his probation. The court of appeals dismissed the petition.
                                  __________________
        Charles Kaine, pro se.
        Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Katherine E. Pridemore,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 4} Kaine claims that at the time the trial court revoked his probation, his
two-year probationary period had expired and divested the trial court of
jurisdiction. Under R.C. 2951.09, “[a]t the end or termination of the period of
probation, the jurisdiction of the judge or magistrate to impose sentence ceases and
the defendant shall be discharged.” And pursuant to the statute, “ ‘[i]t matters not
that the alleged violation of probation occurred during the period of probation and
could have resulted, if timely prosecuted, in a revocation of probation and
imposition of sentence.’ ” State v. Jackson (1995), 

106 Ohio App.3d 345, 348

, 

666 N.E.2d 255, 257

, quoting State v. Jackson (1988), 

56 Ohio App.3d 141

, 

565 N.E.2d 848

.
       {¶ 5} Kaine’s claim is meritless. He erroneously relies on a date before his
trial court’s judgment placing him on probation was journalized to be the starting
date for his two-year probationary period. Crim.R. 32(C) expressly provides that a
judgment in a criminal case “is effective only when entered on the journal by the
clerk.” The rule reflects the axiom that courts speak only through their journal
entries. See State ex rel. White v. Junkin (1997), 

80 Ohio St.3d 335, 337

, 

686 N.E.2d 267, 269

; Schenley v. Kauth (1953), 

160 Ohio St. 109

, 

51 O.O. 30

, 

113 N.E.2d 625

, paragraph two of the syllabus.
       {¶ 6} Based on the foregoing, Kaine’s two-year probationary period did not
commence until his judgment of conviction and sentence was entered, i.e., August
28, 1996. And his probation was revoked by a judgment entered on July 29, 1998,
which was within his probationary period. Therefore, Kaine’s trial court had the
requisite jurisdiction to revoke his probation and order him to serve his previously
suspended sentence, and he is not entitled to extraordinary relief in habeas corpus.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
                                                                Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.




                                         2
__________________




        3