State ex rel. London v. Ohio Pardon & Parole Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. London v. Ohio Pardon & Parole Commission

208 N.E.2d 137, 2 Ohio St. 2d 224, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 453, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 530

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 9, 1965

DocketNo. 39175

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 208 N.E.2d 137 (State ex rel. London v. Ohio Pardon & Parole Commission) 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

State ex rel. London v. Ohio Pardon & Parole Commission, 208 N.E.2d 137, 2 Ohio St. 2d 224, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 453, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 530 (Ohio 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Relator was returned to the Ohio Penitentiary in September 1963 as a parole violator. After his return thereto, he had a hearing before the commission, and his parole was revoked for the violation of four different rules of parole. Relator apparently is urging in his petition that he is entitled at his hearing on a violation of parole to all the rights accorded. an accused in his original trial, such as compulsory process to procure witnesses, counsel, etc. In other words, a complete judicial hearing.

The position of the parolee was thoroughly considered in In re Varner, 166 Ohio St. 340. See, also, State, ex rel. Newman, v. Lowery et al., Ohio Pardon and Parole Commission, 157 Ohio St. 463.

The reasoning in the Varner case in relation to habeas corpus is equally applicable to an action in mandamus. The demurrer is sustained, and the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Taet, C. J., Zimmebman, 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

Per Curiam.

Relator was returned to the Ohio Penitentiary in September 1963 as a parole violator. After his return thereto, he had a hearing before the commission, and his parole was revoked for the violation of four different rules of parole. Relator apparently is urging in his petition that he is entitled at his hearing on a violation of parole to all the rights accorded. an accused in his original trial, such as compulsory process to procure witnesses, counsel, etc. In other words, a complete judicial hearing.

The position of the parolee was thoroughly considered in In re Varner, 166 Ohio St. 340. See, also, State, ex rel. Newman, v. Lowery et al., Ohio Pardon and Parole Commission, 157 Ohio St. 463.

The reasoning in the Varner case in relation to habeas corpus is equally applicable to an action in mandamus. The demurrer is sustained, and the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Taet, C. J., Zimmebman, Matthias, O’Neill,, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 N.E.2d 137, 2 Ohio St. 2d 224, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 453, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-london-v-ohio-pardon-parole-commission-ohio-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack