When a trial court released a state prisoner from custody, believing the man had served his full sentence, the prison warden appealed the decision. Because the man had been released, the appeals court ruled the case was moot and dismissed it. The Supreme Court of Ohio today decided the warden’s appeal should be considered.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found the Ninth District Court of Appeals had wrongly concluded that the state’s appeal was moot. The appeals court ruled that after a trial court released Felix Maurent in 2023 on a writ of habeas corpus, the warden could not appeal the order of release.

Writing for the Court, Justice R. Patrick DeWine explained that an appeal is not moot when a favorable judgment will provide effective relief to the winning party.

“Because a judgment in favor of the warden would result in the return of the prisoner to prison to serve the remainder of his term, the appeal is not moot,” Justice DeWine stated.

Disputed Sentence Led to Contested Release
In 2012, Maurent was sentenced to prison for several felony offenses. He received a combination of consecutive and concurrent sentences. Initially, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction reviewed the trial court’s sentencing entry and calculated that Maurent’s sentence was 11 years.

Before Maurent’s scheduled release date, the department reviewed the sentencing entry again and determined he was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Maurent was serving his sentence in Grafton Correctional Institution in Lorain County when his original release date passed. He filed a petition for habeas corpus in Lorain County Common Pleas Court. The Grafton warden, on behalf of the state, contested Maurent’s request to be released, arguing he had not completed his sentence.

The trial court found the sentencing entry to be ambiguous and that the ambiguity should be resolved in Maurent’s favor. The trial court ordered Maurent’s release from prison. The warden asked the trial judge to stay the order so the state could appeal. The judge refused, and Maurent was freed.

The warden appealed to the Ninth District and also asked for a stay of the trial court’s order releasing Maurent. The Ninth District denied the stay, indicating the warden did not supply an affidavit supporting his request, which was required by local court rules.

The Ninth District never considered the merits of the warden’s argument that Maurent had to serve more time. Instead, the Ninth District cited two decisions by the Third District Court of Appeals from the 1970s, which held that an appeal of a grant of habeas corpus becomes moot after the prisoner is released. The Ninth District also noted that after it denied the warden’s stay request for failing to follow the local rules, the warden did not attempt to refile the motion in compliance with the rules. Because Maurent was released and the warden did “not employ available procedural remedies to prevent the outcome,” the appeals ruled the case was moot.

Supreme Court Analyzed Standards for Mooting Case
Justice DeWine explained that the Ohio Constitution permits courts to decide only “actual controversies where a judgment can be carried into effect.” The judicial power does not extend to moot cases because when a case becomes moot, there is no longer any controversy for a court to decide, he wrote.

However, if an actual controversy exists because a court can grant relief to a party, the case is not moot, and the merits of the case can be considered, the opinion noted. In Maurent’s case, the appeals court could provide the relief the warden requested.

“If the Ninth District were to determine that Maurent was sentenced to 13 years in prison, the remedy would be to return Maurent to state custody to serve the remainder of his prison term,” the opinion stated.

The opinion noted that Ohio courts have ordered the return of prisoners to state custody when they have been improperly released without serving their full prison terms. The Court also stated “that an appeal does not become moot simply by virtue of the prisoner’s release through a writ of habeas corpus.”

The Court cited an 1895 decision (Henderson v. James), which allowed for the review of a discharge by habeas corpus and reversal of the decision by a higher court. The opinion stated that other Supreme Court decisions have followed, finding that a release obtained through habeas corpus can be appealed. Because Maurent may be returned to prison if the warden prevails, the Ninth District must consider the merits of the warden’s appeal, the Court concluded.

2024-1132. Maurent v. Spatny, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5002.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.