Opinion
No. 72-428
Decided December 13, 1972.
Criminal law — Adult Parole Authority — Action declaring paroled convict parole violator — Not reviewable in habeas corpus action.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
Appellant Norman S. Sykes, III, was admitted to the State Reformatory in 1968 to serve a one-to-five-year sentence for aggravated assault. He was transferred to the penitentiary in 1969, and was paroled in February 1970. Although he was declared a parole violator in September 1970, he was again placed on active parole status in December of that year.
On February 2, 1971, Sykes was shot while resisting arrest on charges of breaking and entering and larceny, and confined in the prison ward of a hospital in Cleveland, Ohio. Shortly thereafter, his parole officer placed a detainer against him as a suspected parole violator, and on February 25 he was declared a parole violator by the Adult Parole Authority. On January 24, 1972, Sykes appeared before the Court of Common Pleas and was permitted to plead guilty to petty larceny. He was sentenced to the workhouse, and fined $300 and costs.
On April 10, 1972, after having served his sentence for petty larceny, Sykes sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Court of Appeals, challenging the authority of the chief of the Adult Parole Authority to declare him a parole violator without the participation of the Parole Board, and contending that his imprisonment was "illegal and unlawful." He also alleged that the determination in his case was not made by the Parole Board within a reasonable time of his being designated a suspected parole violator.
The Court of Appeals, without opinion, granted a motion to dismiss the petition for the writ on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action in habeas corpus.
The cause is now before this court, upon an appeal as of right.
Mr. Glenn Billington and Mr. Lloyd B. Snyder, for appellant.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Jeffrey L. McClelland, for appellee.
The Court of Appeals correctly determined that habeas corpus is not available to review the action of the Adult Parole Authority. In re Varner (1957), 166 Ohio St. 340, 142 N.E.2d 846; Guerrieri v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 75, 204 N.E.2d 60; In re Copely (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 35, 278 N.E.2d 358.
These cases, as did the one at bar, arose prior to the announcement of Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484.
Additionally, the sole facts of record indicate that the "Adult Parole Authority has carefully considered all of the factors brought to its attention concerning this case." While the only signature appearing to support that statement is that of the chief of that Authority, we cannot assume therefrom that he is the only person who considered the matter. "* * * The Adult Parole Authority consists of its chief, a parole supervision section, a probation development and supervision section, an administration and research section, and a parole board." R.C. 5149.02.
Furthermore, R.C. 2967.15, which prescribes the procedure to be followed in parole violation cases, does not specifically require that the Parole Board hear and decide all cases of parole revocation.
Finally, under the meager facts presented, and in view of the broad powers accorded the chief of the Adult Parole Authority by R.C. Chapter 5149, we do not consider this case a suitable vehicle for an in-depth analysis of this changing area of the law.
Judgment affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J., SCHNEIDER, HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, LEACH and BROWN, JJ., concur.