State ex rel. Marsh v. Tibbals (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 829
Ohio2017Background
- Stacey L. Marsh is an Ohio parolee who was declared a parole violator after federal convictions; he was returned to Ohio custody on August 15, 2014, and his parole was revoked after a September 2014 hearing that he attended and at which he admitted violations and presented mitigation.
- The APA imposed a 48‑month sanction; Marsh will next be eligible for parole consideration in August 2018.
- Marsh sought habeas corpus (immediate release) or, alternatively, mandamus to (a) have his time in federal custody (2001–2011) credited toward his state revocation sanction and (b) obtain a new revocation/mitigation hearing with court‑appointed counsel.
- The Twelfth District granted summary judgment to the Warden and the APA; the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed that grant de novo.
- The Court held Marsh was not entitled to habeas relief because he remains lawfully held under a valid revocation sanction and was not entitled to immediate release.
- The Court also held Marsh failed to show a clear legal right to credit for federal time or to a new hearing with appointed counsel; mandamus relief was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marsh is entitled to immediate release via habeas corpus because his revocation hearing was delayed or otherwise defective | Marsh: APA should have held revocation hearing earlier (via videoconference) while he was in federal custody; delay violated his due‑process rights and Kellogg consent‑decree timing | APA/Warden: No duty to hold final revocation hearing while Marsh was incarcerated on federal sentences; revocation duty arose only after transfer to state custody | Denied — Habeas inappropriate; Marsh remains lawfully detained and has not served his maximum sentence |
| Whether videoconference availability required APA to conduct revocation hearing during Marsh’s federal incarceration | Marsh: videoconferencing = equivalent to in‑person; APA should have held hearing when federal prison made him available | APA: No constitutional or statutory duty to hold final revocation hearing before state custody; precedent rejects requirement | Denied — availability of videoconferencing did not create APA duty while Marsh was in federal custody |
| Whether Marsh is entitled to credit for time in federal custody toward his state revocation sanction | Marsh: earlier hearing would have produced credit for federal time served | APA: R.C. 2967.15 and precedent preclude crediting out‑of‑state/federal incarceration time toward state parole revocation sanction | Denied — statutory scheme and precedent bar crediting federal time toward revocation sanction |
| Whether Marsh was entitled to appointed counsel or a new mitigation hearing | Marsh: was misinformed, deceived into declining counsel and thus should get a new hearing with appointed counsel | APA: Marsh was informed of right to request counsel/witnesses, declined, admitted violations, and presented mitigation that was not complex or colorable enough to require counsel | Denied — no clear legal right to appointed counsel; Gagnon standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio 2011) (summary‑judgment standard)
- Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 1995) (habeas available only in extraordinary circumstances and absent adequate remedies)
- Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213 (Ohio 1998) (habeas appropriate only when maximum sentence expired)
- Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1976) (loss of liberty from parole revocation attaches upon execution/custody under warrant)
- State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 66 Ohio St.3d 121 (Ohio 1993) (no duty to hold revocation hearing while parolee imprisoned for new crimes)
- Brantley v. Ghee, 83 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1998) (APA has no duty to hold final revocation hearing while incarcerated on new charges)
- Kellogg v. Shoemaker, 927 F. Supp. 244 (S.D. Ohio 1996) (consent decree setting hearing, notice, and counsel rights for class members)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (constitutional right to counsel when parolee makes timely, colorable claim of complex mitigation)
- Stamper v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 62 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 1991) (counsel not automatically required for mitigation hearings)
- Gillen v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 72 Ohio St.3d 381 (Ohio 1995) (federal incarceration not credited toward state parole revocation sanction)