Scanlon v. Brunsman, 2006-1482.
Decision Date | 27 December 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 2006-1482.,2006-1482. |
Citation | 858 N.E.2d 411,112 Ohio St.3d 151,2006 Ohio 6522 |
Parties | SCANLON, Appellant, v. BRUNSMAN, Warden, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Neil P. Scanlon, pro se.
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a habeas corpus petition.
{¶ 2} On May 30, 2006, appellant, Neil P. Scanlon, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Ross County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Chillicothe Correctional Institution Warden Timothy Brunsman, to release him from prison. Scanlon claimed that he was entitled to be released on August 23, 2006, instead of his scheduled release date of December 23, 2006. On June 29, 2006, which was before the release date that Scanlon claimed, the court of appeals dismissed the petition.
{¶ 3} In this appeal as of right, Scanlon contends that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his petition.
{¶ 4} In general, habeas corpus is proper in the criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or some other physical confinement. Crase v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-663, 842 N.E.2d 513, ¶ 5; State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 165, 167, 702 N.E.2d 423. Because Scanlon claimed he was entitled to an earlier release date but not to immediate release from prison, he did not state a viable habeas corpus claim. See, e.g., Hanes v. Haviland (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 465, 466, 755 N.E.2d 898 () ; State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr. (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 70, 71, 765 N.E.2d 356. The contentions that Scanlon raises on appeal do not alter this dispositive fact.
{¶ 5} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brooks v. Kelly
...criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or some other physical confinement. Scanlon v. Brunsman, 112 Ohio St.3d 151, 2006-Ohio-6522, 858 N.E.2d 411, ¶ 4, citing Crase v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-663, 842 N.E.2d 513, ¶ 5, and State ......
-
State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright
...criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or some other physical confinement." Scanlon v. Brunsman , 112 Ohio St.3d 151, 2006-Ohio-6522, 858 N.E.2d 411, ¶ 4. If a petitioner claims he is entitled to an earlier release date but not to immediate rele......
-
Johnson v. LaRose
...to Ohio Supreme Court, it affirmed, summarizing:More fundamentally, Johnson is not entitled to immediate release. Scanlon v. Brunsman, 112 Ohio St.3d 151, 2006-Ohio-6522, 858 N.E.2d 411, ¶ 4 ("In general, habeas corpus is proper in the criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to ......
-
State v. Keith
...criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or some other physical confinement." Scanlon v. Brunsman, 112 Ohio St.3d 151, 2006-Ohio-6522, 858 N.E.2d 411, ¶ 4.Third, even assuming the invalidity of Keith's second and third criminal sentences, he is no......