Scarberry v. Turner
139 Ohio St. 3d 111
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Darby Scarberry, convicted of a 1983 rape (10–25 years), was on parole when he committed two petty-theft offenses at a gas station in December 2009 and pled guilty to those misdemeanors in January 2010.
- A parole-officer violation report (Rader) prepared in January 2010 contained a sentence stating Scarberry had previously robbed a gas station at knifepoint and raped a cashier; Scarberry contended that statement falsely referred to the 2009 incidents.
- The OAPA revoked Scarberry’s parole in February 2010 (requiring a 36-month reincarceration) and later—after he completed that term—denied early release following a January 25, 2013 parole hearing.
- Scarberry pursued administrative grievance remedies with the OAPA (rejected as non-grievable), then filed a habeas corpus petition in the Third District seeking expungement of the false statement and a new parole-release hearing.
- The court of appeals dismissed the habeas petition; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding habeas was not the proper remedy and Scarberry failed to establish a due-process violation or entitlement to a new discretionary release hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scarberry) | Defendant's Argument (Turner/OAPA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is habeas corpus the proper remedy to obtain a new parole-release hearing based on alleged false statements? | Habeas may be used to compel correction of the report and a new release hearing. | Habeas requires entitlement to immediate release; here Scarberry seeks a new hearing, not immediate release. | Habeas is not the proper remedy; relief for parole due-process violations is a new hearing, not habeas. |
| Did Scarberry have a right to a new revocation hearing? | He argued the revocation was tainted by the false report. | Revocation period completed; any challenge to revocation is moot. | Request for a new revocation hearing was moot (36-month term complete). |
| Is there a legal right to a second discretionary early-release hearing because of the alleged false statement? | The false statement deprived him of due process at release consideration. | Early release is wholly discretionary; no expectancy of parole or entitlement to a hearing. | No legal basis to order a new discretionary early-release hearing. |
| Did the Rader report falsely attribute a 2009 rape to Scarberry such that due process was violated? | The disputed sentence referred to a gas-station rape at knifepoint in 2009. | Context shows the sentence described a prior (2007/1983-related) offense; it did not refer to 2009. | Court held the sentence referred to an earlier incident and was not a false accusation about 2009; no due-process violation proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation implicates due process and requires a hearing)
- State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185 (1995) (remedy for parole due-process violations is a new hearing, not immediate release via habeas)
- Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470 (2008) (habeas corpus relief requires entitlement to immediate release)
- Pewitt v. Lorain Corr. Inst., 64 Ohio St.3d 470 (1992) (habeas is the wrong remedy to challenge parole hearing violations absent extreme delay)
- State ex rel. Blake v. Shoemaker, 4 Ohio St.3d 42 (1983) (no protectable expectancy of parole; early-release decision is discretionary)