Greene v. Turner (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 8305
Ohio2017Background
- Greene, on parole from an earlier aggravated-burglary sentence, was arrested in April 2015 on drug charges; the APA found a parole violation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence.
- The criminal drug charges were later dismissed by the state for insufficient evidence.
- In August 2016 Greene filed a pro se habeas petition in the court of appeals against the warden, alleging the APA’s parole-revocation finding denied him due process because of insufficient evidence.
- The warden moved to dismiss; the Third District granted dismissal on multiple procedural grounds and for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: Greene failed to comply with statutory and procedural filing requirements (R.C. 2969.25(C); R.C. 2725.04(D); Civ.R. 10(A)) and did not present an extraordinary-parole-revocation claim cognizable in habeas corpus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) (inmate-account statement) | Greene submitted an affidavit of indigency and a certificate of prisoner account; claimed compliance. | The submitted documents did not state the inmate-account balance for each of the preceding six months as required. | Not complied with; dismissal warranted. |
| Compliance with R.C. 2725.04(D) (attach commitment papers) | Greene referenced his 1990 probation and 2011 parole but argued attachments were unnecessary. | He failed to attach all commitment papers proving prior revocation history. | Required documents were missing; dismissal warranted. |
| Civ.R. 10(A) (caption parties/addresses) | Civ.R. 10(A) should not apply to habeas petitions. | Rule applies; Greene’s caption omitted his and the warden’s addresses. | Rule applies to habeas petitions; caption defective. |
| Cognizability of habeas claim (due-process/insufficient evidence at parole hearing) | Greene argued APA’s revocation violated due process because evidence was insufficient and criminal charges were later dismissed. | Parole revocation may be based on different standard and can stand even if criminal charges are dismissed; habeas lies only to challenge jurisdiction or extraordinary nonjurisdictional errors. | Claim not one of the extraordinary parole-revocation cases that permit habeas relief; not cognizable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Al'shahid v. Cook, 40 N.E.3d 1073 (Ohio 2015) (failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) and R.C. 2725.04(D) is fatal)
- Kneuss v. Sloan, 54 N.E.3d 1242 (Ohio 2016) (Civ.R. 10(A) applies to habeas petitions)
- Pence v. Bunting, 40 N.E.3d 1058 (Ohio 2015) (habeas petitioners must attach all commitment papers)
- Appenzeller v. Miller, 996 N.E.2d 919 (Ohio 2013) (habeas lies only to challenge sentencing-court jurisdiction; narrow exceptions for extraordinary nonjurisdictional errors)
- State ex rel. Carrion v. Adult Parole Auth., 687 N.E.2d 759 (Ohio 1997) (parole may be revoked even if related criminal charges are dismissed)
- State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 652 N.E.2d 746 (Ohio 1995) (habeas relief for parole revocation available only in extraordinary cases)
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. State, 742 N.E.2d 651 (Ohio 2001) (applying caption rule to habeas corpus)