Bollar v. Eberlin

Ohio Supreme Court

Bollar v. Eberlin

901 N.E.2d 220, 121 Ohio St. 3d 3

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 28, 2009

DocketNo. 2008-1890

StatusPublished

This text of 901 N.E.2d 220 (Bollar v. Eberlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bollar v. Eberlin, 901 N.E.2d 220, 121 Ohio St. 3d 3 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Gregory Earl Bollar, for a writ of habeas corpus, because he failed to attach all the commitment papers pertinent to his claim challenging the Ohio [4]*4Adult Parole Authority’s multiple revocations of his parole and extension of his release date based on R.C. 2967.15(C)(1). See State ex rel. Bray v. Brigano (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 458, 459, 755 N.E.2d 891, and Tucker v. McAninch (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 423, 696 N.E.2d 595.

Gregory Earl Bollar, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 2} Notwithstanding Bollar’s assertions to the contrary, those papers were material to his claim.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Gregory Earl Bollar, for a writ of habeas corpus, because he failed to attach all the commitment papers pertinent to his claim challenging the Ohio [4]*4Adult Parole Authority’s multiple revocations of his parole and extension of his release date based on R.C. 2967.15(C)(1). See State ex rel. Bray v. Brigano (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 458, 459, 755 N.E.2d 891, and Tucker v. McAninch (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 423, 696 N.E.2d 595.

Gregory Earl Bollar, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 2} Notwithstanding Bollar’s assertions to the contrary, those papers were material to his claim.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

901 N.E.2d 220, 121 Ohio St. 3d 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bollar-v-eberlin-ohio-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack