Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.17 (2026)

Prisoner transportation - expenses

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) The sheriff may take one guard for every two convicted felons to be transported to a correctional institution. The trial judge may authorize a larger number of guards upon written application of the sheriff, in which case a transcript of the order of the judge shall be certified by the clerk of the court of common pleas under the seal of the court, and the sheriff shall deliver the order with the convict to the person in charge of the correctional institution.

(B) In order to obtain reimbursement for the county for the expenses of transportation for indigent convicted felons, the clerk of the court of common pleas shall prepare a transportation cost bill for each indigent convicted felon transported pursuant to this section for an amount equal to not less than one dollar a mile from the county seat to the state correctional institution and return for each prisoner. The number of miles shall be computed by the usual route of travel. The clerk's duties under this division are subject to division (B) of section 2949.19 of the Revised Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2021 · leading case: State v. Turner, 2021-Ohio-1921.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Turner, 2021-Ohio-1921. “] {¶23} None of appellant’s 14 assignments of error makes any argument why this court should reverse the trial court’s denial of the two motions appealed.”
State ex rel. Clifford v. Cloud, 218 N.E.2d 605 (Ohio 1966). “ations for the biennium beginning July 1, 1965, and ending June 30, 1967, approved June 30, 1965) contains this language: Auditor of State Criminal Costs (1965-1966 1966-1967 Biennium) 80-501 Subsidy $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 1,800,000 The above subsidy appropriation — criminal…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.17(B): 1 case
State v. Turner, 2021-Ohio-1921. “] {¶23} None of appellant’s 14 assignments of error makes any argument why this court should reverse the trial court’s denial of the two motions appealed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.