[Cite as Alford v. Crutchfield, 2016-Ohio-7295.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
BRIAN KEITH ALFORD, : CASE NO. CA2016-03-021 Petitioner-Appellant, : OPINION : 10/11/2016 - vs - :
GEORGE CRUTCHFIELD, WARDEN, :
Respondent-Appellee. :
CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 15CV87458
Brian Keith Alford, #A196744, London Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 69, London, Ohio 43140, appellant, pro se
Jonathan Khouri, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Section, 615 West Superior Avenue, 11th Floor, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, for appellee
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Petitioner-appellant, Brian Keith Alford, appeals from the decision of the
Warren County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For
the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On March 27, 1984, Alford was sentenced to serve an aggregate term of 14 to Warren CA2016-03-021
70 years in prison after he was convicted in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas
for three counts of robbery and one count of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification.
After serving nearly 16 years in prison, Alford was granted parole and released from prison
on December 23, 1999.
{¶ 3} On June 6, 2000, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, charging Alford with armed bank robbery and
use of a firearm in a crime of violence. That same day, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority
("OAPA") declared Alford to be a "violator at large." Alford was subsequently arrested on
June 22, 2000 and later indicted on those charges by a federal grand jury approximately
three weeks later on July 11, 2000.
{¶ 4} On February 28, 2002, a jury returned a verdict finding Alford guilty as charged.
Several months later, on December 12, 2002, Alford was sentenced to serve a total of 144
months in federal prison with a tentatively scheduled release date for good behavior on
December 5, 2010.1 As a result of Alford's conviction, on January 28, 2003, OAPA declared
Alford a "violator in custody" and issued a state warrant for Alford's arrest as a "release
violator." Thereafter, on March 21, 2003, OAPA forwarded the state warrant to the federal
prison where Alford was incarcerated and requested that a detainer be placed in Alford's file.
{¶ 5} After he received notice of the state warrant and detainer, Alford contacted
OAPA several times between August 22, 2003 and March 13, 2005 requesting the warrant
and detainer be removed and that he be released from parole. In response, on April 5, 2005
and again on August 8, 2005, OAPA informed Alford that the state warrant and detainer
would remain in place until he completed his federal prison sentence and became available
to the state so that a parole revocation hearing could be conducted. Specifically, as OAPA
1. The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed Alford's conviction on direct appeal in Alford v. United States, 116 Fed.Appx. 706 (6th Cir.2004). -2- Warren CA2016-03-021
stated in its August 8, 2005 letter to Alford:
When you have completed your period of incarceration with the federal Bureau of Prisons, you will be returned to the State of Ohio to face charges of violating supervision. Within days of your return, you will receive a copy of the Notice of Hearing which will include the time and date of your hearing and the list of the alleged supervision violation(s) which will cite the conditions of supervision that may have been violated. At the conclusion of the hearing, a written notice of finding will [be] issued and if applicable, a written sanction order will also be issued.
The State of Ohio does not conduct hearings in absentia, therefore, the documents described above are produced only during the hearing process. You must be available to the state of Ohio before the hearing process can be initiated. As you are presently serving a period of confinement and are out of the state you are not available.
{¶ 6} On January 7, 2011, Alford was released from federal prison and returned to
the state under OAPA's supervision. That same day, OAPA restored Alford to "parole status"
with a new maximum sentence date of June 4, 2067. Approximately one week later, on
January 13, 2011, OAPA provided Alford with notice regarding his parole violation hearing
scheduled for February 7, 2011. Following this hearing, and due to his convictions in federal
court for armed bank robbery and use of a firearm in a crime of violence, Alford's parole was
revoked. Although proclaiming his innocence, the record indicates Alford readily
acknowledged that he had been convicted of these charges. The record also indicates Alford
"waived counsel at hearing based on denial of representation following Gagnon screening."2
Alford was then ordered to serve an additional 18 months in prison before he would again be
eligible for parole release consideration. Since that time, Alford has twice been denied
parole with his next parole hearing scheduled for May 1, 2017.
2. A "Gagnon screening" refers to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756 (1973), which held that the decision regarding the need to appoint counsel for a parolee at a parole revocation hearing "must be made on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of a sound discretion by the state authority charged with responsibility for administering the probation and parole system." Id. at 790. -3- Warren CA2016-03-021
{¶ 7} On July 9, 2015, Alford filed a petition with the trial court seeking a writ of
habeas corpus. In support, Alford argued that OAPA improperly denied him a parole
revocation hearing between June 22, 2000, the date he was arrested on federal charges of
armed bank robbery and use of a firearm in a crime of violence, and December 12, 2002, the
date the federal court sentenced him to serve a total of 144 months in federal prison.
According to Alford, OAPA's failure to hold a parole revocation hearing during this time
created an unreasonable delay that violated his due process rights and required his
immediate release from prison and reinstatement to his prior parole status. Alford also
argued that OAPA was incorrect in failing to provide him with appointed counsel at his
subsequent parole revocation hearing conducted on February 7, 2011.
{¶ 8} On August 10, 2015, respondent-appellee, George Crutchfield, the warden for
the Warren Correctional Institute where Alford was incarcerated, responded to Alford's
petition by filing a motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment.
As relevant here, on January 28, 2016, a magistrate issued a decision granting the warden's
motion for summary judgment, thereby denying Alford's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
In so holding, the magistrate determined that even if the delay in holding the parole
revocation hearing was unreasonable, Alford could not demonstrate any resulting prejudice.
The magistrate also determined that Alford had no right to appointed counsel because the
parole revocation hearing did not involve any "especially difficult or complex issues" as it was
"merely a formal acknowledgment" that he had been convicted on the federal charges while
on parole. Alford then filed objections to the magistrate's decision, which the trial court
subsequently denied on March 14, 2016.
Alford's Appeal from the Trial Court's Decision
{¶ 9} Alford now appeals, raising three assignments of error for review that reiterate
the same arguments he alleged in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus; namely, (1) that -4- Warren CA2016-03-021
OAPA created an unreasonable delay and violated his due process rights by not holding his
parole revocation hearing within a reasonable time after he was arrested on June 22, 2000
but before he was sentenced December 12, 2002; and (2) that OAPA was incorrect in failing
to provide him with appointed counsel during his subsequent parole revocation hearing
conducted on February 7, 2011.
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
{¶ 10} Although arguing that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, Alford's appeal
arises from the trial court's decision affirming and adopting the magistrate's decision granting
the warden's motion for summary judgment. "A court of appeals reviews the decision on
whether to grant summary judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding as it would in any other
civil summary judgment action." Barnett v. Houk, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2004-01-001,
2004-Ohio-6482, ¶ 7, citing Horton v. Collins, 83 Ohio App.3d 287, 291 (9th Dist.1992). This
court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo. Arnet v. Mong, 12th Dist. Fayette No.
CA2015-10-022, 2016-Ohio-2893, ¶ 6. In applying the de novo standard, this court is
required to "us[e] the same standard that the trial court should have used, and * * * examine
the evidence to determine whether as a matter of law no genuine issues exist for trial."
Bravard v. Curran, 155 Ohio App.3d 713, 2004-Ohio-181, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.).
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
{¶ 11} A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy available where there is an
unlawful restraint of a person's liberty and no adequate remedy at law. Maxwell v. Jones,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-07-179, 2010-Ohio-1633, ¶ 7. Habeas corpus is generally
appropriate in the criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from
prison. Powers v. Timmerman-Cooper, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2013-01-002, 2013-Ohio-
2865, ¶ 10, citing Larsen v. State, 92 Ohio St.3d 69 (2001). In turn, habeas corpus is "not
the proper remedy to address every concern a prisoner has about his legal rights or status." -5- Warren CA2016-03-021
Rodgers v. Capots, 67 Ohio St.3d 435, 436 (1993). However, habeas corpus will lie to
challenge a decision of the OAPA in extraordinary cases involving parole revocation. State
ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 187 (1995). This occurs most notably "when
the parole authorities fail to make a determination of the parole violation issue within a
reasonable time." Beach v. McAninch, 111 Ohio App.3d 667, 672 (4th Dist.1996).
Unreasonable Delay to Conduct a Parole Revocation Hearing
{¶ 12} As noted above, Alford initially argues that he is entitled to a writ of habeas
corpus because OAPA created an unreasonable delay and violated his due process rights by
not holding his parole revocation hearing within a reasonable time after he was arrested on
June 22, 2000 but before he was sentenced in federal court on December 12, 2002. We
disagree.
{¶ 13} As applicable here, at the time Alford was granted parole and subsequently
arrested on charges of armed bank robbery and use of a firearm in a crime of violence, R.C.
2967.15(B) stated:
Except as otherwise provided in this division, prior to the revocation by the adult parole authority of a person's pardon, parole, transitional control, or other release and prior to the imposition by the parole board or adult parole authority of a new prison term as a post-release control sanction for a person, the adult parole authority shall grant the person a hearing in accordance with rules adopted by the department of rehabilitation and correction under Chapter 119. of the Revised Code.
That provision also stated:
If the authority fails to make a determination of the case of a parolee or releasee alleged to be a violator of the terms and conditions of the parolee's or releasee's conditional pardon, parole, other release, or post-release control sanctions within a reasonable time, the parolee or releasee shall be released from custody under the same terms and conditions of the parolee's or releasee's original conditional pardon, parole, other release, or post-release control sanctions.
-6- Warren CA2016-03-021
{¶ 14} Contrary to Alford's claim otherwise, "there is no ten-day or sixty-day rule
entitling parolees to habeas corpus relief upon expiration of such period; instead, the
applicable test is whether there has been an unreasonable delay in holding a parole-
revocation hearing." State ex rel. Spann v. Mitchell, 82 Ohio St.3d 416, 417, citing Seebeck
v. Zent, 68 Ohio St.3d 109, 110 (1993). Rather, as noted by the Ohio Supreme Court, "[a]
court should apply a two-part test in determining whether the delay of the [OAPA], in not
commencing a final parole revocation hearing, entitles an alleged parole violator to habeas
corpus relief." Coleman v. Stobbs, 23 Ohio St.3d 137, 139 (1986).
{¶ 15} First, it must be determined whether any delay was unreasonable. This
involves the consideration and balancing of three factors: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the
reasons for the delay, and (3) the alleged parole violator's assertion of his right to a hearing
within a reasonable period of time. Id. Second, if the delay is found to be unreasonable, it
must then be determined whether the delay somehow prejudiced the alleged parole violator.
The factors to be considered in determining whether the petitioner was prejudiced are (1)
prevention of oppressive prehearing incarceration, (2) minimization of anxiety and concern of
the alleged parole violator and, (3) limitation of the possibility that delay will impair the alleged
parole violator's defense at his final parole revocation hearing. State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio
Adult Parole Auth., 66 Ohio St.3d 121, 128 (1993).
{¶ 16} After a thorough review of the record, we find Alford was not subject to an
unreasonable delay resulting from the OAPA not commencing his parole revocation hearing
until after Alford was released from federal prison. In so holding, we note that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio already rejected this very claim as part
of its decision denying Alford's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Alford v. Shartle,
N.D.Ohio No. 4:08CV1963 (Nov. 4, 2008), a decision the United States Sixth Circuit Court of
-7- Warren CA2016-03-021
Appeals later affirmed.3 As part of that decision, the district court, citing to the United States
Supreme Court's decision in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593 (1972),
stated:
While the Court [in Morrissey] noted that this revocation hearing must be held within a "reasonable time after the parolee is taken into custody," Mr. Alford is not presently in the custody of the State of Ohio. It is only at that time when he will be entitled to be heard and present evidence showing he did not violate his parole conditions, or, if he did, what circumstances in mitigation suggest the violation does not warrant revocation. Due process is satisfied if the procedures followed by the parole board comply with the minimum standards set forth in Morrissey.
(Internal citations omitted.)
{¶ 17} This is the exact same notice OAPA provided to Alford on both April 5, 2005
and August 8, 2005 in response to Alford's requests that the state warrant and detainer be
removed and that he be released from parole. "The United States Supreme Court has held
that it is constitutional to wait to hold a parole revocation hearing until after a prisoner has
completely served an intervening sentence." Matter of Byrd, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA89-
08-015, 1990 WL 59222, *3 (May 7, 1990), citing Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 97 S.Ct.
274 (1976).
{¶ 18} Moreover, under both the former and current versions of R.C. 2967.15(B),
because Alford's parole revocation was based on his conviction in federal court for armed
bank robbery and use of a firearm in a crime of violence, OAPA was not required to grant
Alford a preliminary hearing on the matter. Specifically, as former R.C. 2967.15(B) stated:
The adult parole authority is not required to grant the person a hearing if the person is convicted of or pleads guilty to an offense that the person committed while released on a pardon, on parole, transitional control, or another form of release, or on post-release control and upon which the revocation of the person's pardon,
3. Although seemingly unavailable online, the state attached the district court's decision in Alford v. Shartle, N.D.Ohio No. 4:08CV1963 (Nov. 4, 2008) as Exhibit C to its motion for summary judgment submitted to the trial court. -8- Warren CA2016-03-021
parole, transitional control, other release, or post-release control is based.
Except for the removal of the term "transitional control" within this provision, the current
version of R.C. 2967.15(B) is identical to that of its predecessor. Therefore, we find the
delay, if any, simply cannot be characterized as unreasonable.
{¶ 19} Regardless, just as the trial court found, even if we were to assume Alford was
subjected to an unreasonable delay, Alford cannot demonstrate any resulting prejudice. This
case is analogous to our decision in Harrison v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA98-09-117, 1999 WL 160959 (Mar. 22, 1999). In that case, the petitioner was
sentenced to serve a term of five to 25 years in prison after he was convicted of three counts
of aggravated burglary. After serving four years in prison, petitioner was released on parole.
However, shortly after his release, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to serve an
additional prison term resulting from four new felony offenses he committed while on parole.
{¶ 20} Following his conviction for these new offenses, and while he was still
incarcerated on these new charges, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
alleging he was entitled to be released from parole since OAPA failed to conduct a parole
revocation hearing within a reasonable time. The trial court denied the petition and the
petitioner then appealed. In affirming the trial court's decision, and even when assuming
petitioner was correct in his assertion that there was an unreasonable delay by the OAPA in
conducting his parole revocation hearing, this court stated:
Appellant was convicted of committing four new crimes while on parole and was sentenced to four new and distinct terms of incarceration. Thus, he was incarcerated during the period of delay which he complains of as being unreasonable for more than a simple parole violation. Notwithstanding any parole revocation, appellant was also being lawfully held under separate convictions for the crimes he committed [shortly after being released on parole]. Accordingly, we fail to see how appellant was prejudiced by the adult parole authority's failure, if any, to timely consider whether he violated his parole. -9- Warren CA2016-03-021
{¶ 21} In this case, just like the petitioner in Harrison, Alford was released on parole
and subsequently convicted of new charges that resulted in him being sentenced to federal
prison. In turn, just as the petitioner in Harrison, Alford was incarcerated for more than a
simple parole violation during the period of time he believes constitutes an unreasonable
delay. However, as noted above, the United States Supreme Court has held that it is
constitutional to wait to hold a parole revocation hearing until after a prisoner has completely
served an intervening sentence. Moreover, neither the former or current version of R.C.
2967.15(B) required OAPA to conduct a preliminary hearing under these circumstances.
{¶ 22} Alford also failed to allege sufficient facts to establish prejudice. As noted
above, although proclaiming his innocence, the record indicates Alford readily admitted that
he had been convicted in federal court for armed bank robbery and use of a firearm in a
crime of violence at his February 7, 2011 parole revocation hearing. The mere fact that he
was convicted of these charges constitutes a clear violation of the conditions of Alford's
parole. Although Alford claims otherwise, "a parolee cannot relitigate issues determined
against him in other forums, as in the situation presented when the revocation is based on
conviction of another crime." Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 490. Therefore, just as the trial court
found, and for which we agree, Alford was not "entitled to re-litigate the merits of his federal
case before the [OAPA]." See State ex rel. Stamper v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 62 Ohio
St.3d 85, 86 (1991). Accordingly, Alford's first argument is without merit.
Right to Appointed Counsel at Parole Revocation Hearing
{¶ 23} Next, Alford claims the OAPA was incorrect in failing to provide appointed
counsel during his parole revocation hearing conducted on February 7, 2011. However, as
the record indicates, Alford "waived counsel at hearing based on denial of representation
following Gagnon screening." Yet, even if Alford had not waived counsel, it is well-
established that the appointment of counsel may only be available in parole revocation - 10 - Warren CA2016-03-021
proceedings that involve "substantial, complex, or difficult factors which would have entitled
him to counsel." McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d at 187, citing Stamper at 87-88.
{¶ 24} In this case, the parole revocation hearing at issue did nothing more than
establish the mere fact that Alford had been convicted in federal court on new charges while
on parole. As noted by the United States Supreme Court:
In most cases, the probationer or parolee has been convicted of committing another crime or has admitted the charges against him. And while in some cases he may have a justifiable excuse for the violation or a convincing reason why revocation is not the appropriate disposition, mitigating evidence of this kind is often not susceptible of proof or is so simple as not to require either investigation or exposition by counsel.
Gagnon, 411 U.S. 778, 787, 93 S.Ct. 1756 (1973).
{¶ 25} That is certainly the case here, as nothing about this hearing involved
substantial, complex, or difficult factors that would have necessitated Alford being appointed
counsel. In other words, as the trial court properly found, the February 7, 2011 parole
revocation hearing did not involve any "especially difficult or complex issues" as it was
"merely a formal acknowledgment" that Alford had been convicted on the federal charges
while on parole. We find no error in the trial court's decision. Therefore, Alford's second
argument is likewise without merit.
Conclusion
{¶ 26} In light of the foregoing, and having found no merit to either of Alford's claims
raised herein, we find no error in the trial court's decision granting the warden's motion for
summary judgment, thereby denying Alford's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Alford's
three assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 27} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.
- 11 -