When a defendant has been committed to a state correctional institution and the judgment by virtue of which the commitment was made is reversed on appeal, and the defendant is entitled to discharge or a new trial, or when the case is remanded to the trial court for any reason, the clerk of the court reversing the judgment or remanding the case, under the seal of the court, shall forthwith certify the reversal or remand to the warden of the state correctional institution.
The warden, on receipt of the certificate, if a discharge of the defendant is ordered, shall forthwith discharge the defendant from the state correctional institution.
If a new trial is ordered or the case is remanded, the warden shall forthwith cause the defendant to be conveyed to the jail of the county in which the defendant was convicted, and committed to the custody of the sheriff of that county.
State ex rel. Peoples v. O'Shaughnessy (Slip Opinion), 2021-Ohio-1572, 175 N.E.3d 524. · cites it 4ד] Mandamus—R.C. 2953.13—There is no justification for granting a writ of mandamus to compel an inmate’s transfer to county jail when the trial court is ordered to issue an amended judgment entry on remand to correct a sentencing error and there will be no resentencing…”
State ex rel. Briscoe v. Matia, 2011-Ohio-760, 128 Ohio St. 3d 365. “{¶ 4} When Briscoe was not transferred to the Cuyahoga County sheriff for a new trial, he filed a petition in the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees to transfer him pursuant to R.C. 2953.13, which directs: {¶ 5} “If a new trial is ordered or the case is…”
State ex rel. Smith v. Tate, 601 N.E.2d 544 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1991). · cites it 3דFor the following reasons, this court denies the writ for habeas corpus, but grants the writ of mandamus and orders the warden to cause Smith to be conveyed to the Cuyahoga County jail and committed to the custody of the sheriff, pursuant to R.C. 2953.13. Between January 1988…”
State v. Hartman, 2014-Ohio-2226. “HARTMAN HAD BEEN UNLAWFULLY IMPRISONED BY THE STATE OF OHIO AT THE RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, CONTRARY TO R.C. 2953.13 AND R.C 2905.01(B)(2), FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS AFTER HIS CONVICTION HAD BEEN REVERSED AND REMANDED, THUS DEPRIVING MR.”
State v. Aspell, 214 N.E.2d 834 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1966). · cites it 2דSee Section 2953.13, Eevised Code. It is apparent that such an order renders any suspension of sentence, and release on bail, meaningless.”
Brown v. State, 2025-Ohio-998, 265 N.E.3d 1271. “{¶ 9} Brown further argued that R.C. 2953.13, entitled “Reversal of Conviction” provides instructions for when “a defendant has been committed to a state correctional institution and the judgment by virtue of which the commitment was made is reversed on appeal[.”
Midgett v. Sheldon, 2021-Ohio-3096, 177 N.E.3d 643. · cites it 2דMidgett’s direct appeal, ODRC could no longer hold him under R.C. 2953.13. (Motion to Dismiss, p. 1) This statute provides, in pertinent part: Richland County, Case No.”
State ex rel. Jackson v. Sutula, 2011-Ohio-6086. · cites it 3דSutula and the warden of the Mansfield Correctional Institution, Terry Tibbals, to convey him to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to R.C. 2953.13 and the appellate judgment as rendered by this court in State v.”
Sutton v. State, 2024-Ohio-5911, 261 N.E.3d 1024. “13, the statute setting out the procedure used when a conviction is reversed or remanded to the trial court by a court of review, a warden of a State correctional institution must “cause the defendant to be conveyed to the jail of the county in which the defendant was convicted,…”
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.