State ex rel. London v. Pardon and Parole Commission, 39175
Decision Date | 09 June 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 39175,39175 |
Citation | 208 N.E.2d 137,2 Ohio St.2d 224 |
Parties | , 31 O.O.2d 453 The STATE ex rel. LONDON, v. PARDON AND PAROLE COMM. et al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
This is an action in mandamus originating in this court. Relator, Riley London, seeks in this action an order compelling the Ohio Pardon and Parole Commission to vacate the revocation of his parole and to grant him a hearing. Respondents have demurred to the petition.
Riley London, in pro. per.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and William C. Baird, Columbus, for respondents.
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 After his return thereto, he had a hearing before the commission, and his parole was revoked for the violation of four different rules of parole.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 throughly considered in In re Varner, 166 Ohio St. 340, 142 N.E.2d 846. See, also, State ex rel. Newman v. Lowery et al., Ohio Pardon and Parole Commission, 157 Ohio St. 463, 105 N.E.2d 643.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rose v. Haskins
...upon request, DiMarco v. Denton, 385 F.2d 556 (6th Cir. 1967), but not a judicial hearing. In State ex rel. London v. Ohio Pardon & Parole Comm., 2 Ohio St.2d 224, 208 N.E.2d 137 (1965), the Supreme Court of Ohio "Relator was returned to the Ohio Penitentiary in September 1963 as a parole v......
-
People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison
...35, cert. den. 396 U.S. 904, 90 S.Ct. 218, 24 L.Ed.2d 180; Robinson v. Cox, 77 N.M. 55, 419 P.2d 253; State ex rel. London v. Pardon and Parole Comm., 2 Ohio St.2d 224, 208 N.E.2d 137; Beal v. Turner, 22 Utah 2d 418, 454 P.2d 624), we prefer the contrary view, expressed by a few courts, as ......
-
Rose v. Haskins, 69-503
...of Mental Hygiene and Correction. In re Varner, 166 Ohio St. 340, 142 N.E.2d 846. See, also, State, ex rel. London, v. Pardon and Parole Comm., 2 Ohio St.2d 224, 208 N.E.2d 137; Barnhart v. Maxwell, 2 Ohio St.2d 308, 208 N.E.2d 752. As such, a parolee has only privileges and not the claimed......
-
State ex rel. Edward A. Taylor v. Chairman of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Reginald Wilkerson, Director of Ohio Department of Correction,
... ... an action in mandamus." See State ex rel. London v ... Pardon and Parole Comm. (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 224 ... ...