Guerrieri v. Maxwell

204 N.E.2d 60, 1 Ohio St. 2d 75, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 143, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 558
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 20, 1965
DocketNo. 39140
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 204 N.E.2d 60 (Guerrieri v. Maxwell) 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
Guerrieri v. Maxwell, 204 N.E.2d 60, 1 Ohio St. 2d 75, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 143, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 558 (Ohio 1965).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action, petitioner is attacking the validity of the parole revocation procedure. His basic contention is that the same rights of due process append to the revocation of a parole as exist in relation to the original conviction. The same questions raised by petitioner were raised and thoroughly considered in In re Varner, 166 Ohio St. 340, and found not reviewable in habeas corpus.

Petitioner had a hearing before the parole board when he was returned to the penitentiary. He raises a question as to the validity of this hearing because it was before two members of the board instead of the whole board. Section 2965.05, Revised Code, reads in part as follows:

“* * * Any investigation, inquiry, or hearing which the commission may make or hold, may be made or held by or before any member designated by the commission for this purpose, and every finding, recommendation, or order made by a [76]*76member so designated, pursuant to such investigation, inquiry, or hearing which is approved, confirmed, and adopted by the commission and ordered to be made a part of its records and minutes, is the finding, recommendation, or order of the commission. ’ ’

Thus, under the provisions of this section, a hearing before two members of the board was proper.

Petitioner’s contentions are not well taken.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Related

King v. Dallman
619 N.E.2d 66 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1993)
Eugene E. Williams v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent
557 F.2d 1221 (Sixth Circuit, 1977)
Sykes v. Kreiger
290 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1972)
Herbert E. Rose v. E. B. Haskins, Superintendent
388 F.2d 91 (Sixth Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
204 N.E.2d 60, 1 Ohio St. 2d 75, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 143, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guerrieri-v-maxwell-ohio-1965.