State ex rel. Parker v. Tate

716 N.E.2d 210, 86 Ohio St. 3d 625
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided September 29, 1999·No. No. 99-786·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Parker failed to allege sufficient facts supporting his claims to withstand dismissal. See State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 188, 652 N.E.2d 746, 748-749; State ex rel. Carrion v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 637, 638, 687 N.E.2d 759, 760. Parker instead relied on conclusory allegations that his “defense was hurt by the many delays” and that his acquittal “removed all factual support” for his revocation. Jackson and Carrion. In fact, the attachments to Parker’s own petition establish that one of his charged parole violations was his failure to notify his parole officer of his arrest on the new criminal charges. Consequently, it is evident that acquittal on those charges did not remove all factual support for his parole revocation.1

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

State ex rel. Parker v. Tate, 716 N.E.2d 210, 86 Ohio St. 3d 625 (Ohio 1999).

716 N.E.2d 210 (State ex rel. Parker v. Tate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jefferson v. Bunting (Slip Opinion)
2014 Ohio 3074 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2014)
Tunison v. Atty. Gen. of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (3-9-2004)
2004 Ohio 1062 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)
Reyes v. Tate
2001 Ohio 289 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001)
State ex rel. Parker v. Tate
1999 Ohio 129 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)