State ex rel. Womack v. Sloan (Slip Opinion)
152 Ohio St. 3d 32
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Womack pleaded guilty to multiple offenses (1985, 1995, 2004) and served prison terms; he was granted parole in April 2014 with a condition of "zero tolerance" for positive drug tests.
- In May 2014 Womack tested positive for buprenorphine; he says he requested a confirmatory test but could not pay the $35 fee and therefore did not receive one.
- In June 2014 the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) held a revocation hearing and revoked Womack’s parole; he was reincarcerated.
- Womack filed a habeas corpus petition in the Eleventh District claiming due-process, equal-protection, and confrontation-rights violations; he sought a new revocation hearing excluding the unconfirmed test and an order changing APA policy for indigent parolees.
- The court of appeals dismissed the habeas petition; Womack appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding habeas was not the proper remedy for his claims and that equal-protection claims are not cognizable in habeas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas corpus is the proper remedy to challenge parole revocation based on an unconfirmed drug test | Womack: habeas should require a new revocation hearing excluding the unconfirmed test | Warden/State: habeas is not the proper remedy for this challenge; relief should be a new hearing via other remedies | Habeas is improper; Womack sought a new hearing not immediate release, so habeas does not lie |
| Whether failure to provide a confirmatory test because of inability to pay violated due process | Womack: APA should have confirmed test regardless of indigence; denial violated due process | State: procedural protections were satisfied; remedy for Morrissey-type due-process violations is a new hearing, not release via habeas | Court: even if a due-process claim exists, habeas is not the correct vehicle; Womack did not show extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether imprisoning Womack for failing to pay the confirmatory-test fee violated equal protection | Womack: incarceration resulted from inability to pay for confirmatory test, violating Fourteenth Amendment | State: Womack was imprisoned for failing a drug test, not for failing to pay; equal-protection claims are not cognizable in habeas | Court: equal-protection claims cannot be raised in habeas; claim fails on that basis and on the merits |
| Whether Womack was entitled to immediate release | Womack: sought a new hearing and policy change, not explicit immediate release | State: no entitlement to immediate release | Court: Womack did not seek or establish entitlement to immediate release; habeas requires entitlement to immediate release |
Key Cases Cited
- Scarberry v. Turner, 139 Ohio St.3d 111, 9 N.E.3d 1022 (Ohio 2014) (parole-revocation due-process violations typically require a new hearing, not immediate release)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due-process protections required at parole-revocation proceedings)
- State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 652 N.E.2d 746 (Ohio 1995) (habeas lies only where petitioner is entitled to immediate release)
- Thomas v. Huffman, 84 Ohio St.3d 266, 703 N.E.2d 315 (Ohio 1998) (equal-protection claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (cannot revoke probation for failure to pay fines without considering ability to pay)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1971) (punishing indigent defendants for inability to pay fines violates equal protection)
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956) (denial of trial transcript to indigent defendants may violate equal protection)