Jones v. McAninch

Ohio Supreme Court

Jones v. McAninch

710 N.E.2d 1115, 85 Ohio St. 3d 659

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 23, 1999

DocketNo. 97-911

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 710 N.E.2d 1115 (Jones v. McAninch) 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

Jones v. McAninch, 710 N.E.2d 1115, 85 Ohio St. 3d 659 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Jones asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. For the following reasons, Jones’s claim is meritless.

As the court of appeals correctly held, Jones did not attach all of his pertinent commitment papers, namely, copies of the sentences for the new crimes he alleged had expired. R.C. 2725.04(D); State ex rel. Lake v. Anderson (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 491, 492, 687 N.E.2d 453, 454.

Moreover, although Jones claimed that the APA failed to hold a parole revocation hearing within a reasonable time after the expiration of the sentences for his new crimes, Jones did not allege with sufficient particularity any prejudice from the APA’s alleged failure to hold that hearing in a timely fashion. State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 270, 272-273, 695 N.E.2d 254, 256.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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