37 F.3d 1499 (6th Cir. 1994), 94-3158, Hattie v. Parker
|Citation:||37 F.3d 1499|
|Party Name:||Terrence W. HATTIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Phillip PARKER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||October 06, 1994|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
N.D. Ohio, No. 90-00223; Sam H. Bell, District Judge.
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, SILER and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.
Terrence W. Hattie, a pro se Ohio state prisoner, appeals from the order denying his motions to enforce the judgment and compel compliance with a previous court order in this habeas corpus proceeding filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
Hattie entered a guilty plea to charges of aggravated robbery and felonious assault and was sentenced to four to twenty-five and two to fifteen years of imprisonment, respectively, to run concurrently. Subsequent to his plea, two other counts from the indictment, attempted rape and abduction, were merged with the felonious assault conviction. In the underlying habeas action, Hattie argued, among other claims, that this merger violated due process. This court agreed and conditionally granted the writ unless the state dismissed those merged charges and directed the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) not to rely on them in calculating Hattie's parole eligibility. The district court entered a similar order on remand.
The state dismissed the merged counts. However, Hattie believed that the OAPA was still relying on the dismissed attempted rape count because he was being required to attend sex offender treatment as a condition of parole. Accordingly, he filed motions to enforce the judgment and compel compliance with the court's order. A response was filed and oral argument was heard. The district court then determined that the respondent had complied with the earlier judgment. Two alternative grounds for this finding were stated by the district court: first, that the previous order required only that the dismissed count not be relied on in calculating Hattie's...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP