Sullivan v. Bunting, 133 Ohio St. 3d 81

Sullivan sought habeas relief in Ohio Supreme Court challenging parole revocation and conditions.
Habeas corpus is proper only when petitioner is entitled to immediate release from confinement.
Sullivan’s sentence had not expired and he had no right to release before expiration.
He argued the revocation order misstated his most recent parole release date and violated due process.
Supreme Court held a new hearing, not release, is the remedy for parole-revocation due-process claims absent undue delay.
Evidence showed Sullivan agreed to parole conditions, admitted violations, and his parole was properly revoked.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas relief lies for parole revocation or conditions	Sullivan	Bunting	Habeas not available for parole conditions or revocation
Remedy for due-process issues in parole revocation	Sullivan	Bunting	Remedy is a new hearing, not release, absent unreasonable delay
Effect of misstatement in revocation order on release	Sullivan	Bunting	No entitlement to release based on misstatement; no reversible error shown
Admissibility of evidence from a warrantless email search	Sullivan	Bunting	Search permissible under parole conditions and statute
Whether the evidence supports parole revocation	Sullivan	Bunting	Record supports violation and proper revocation

Scanlon v. Brunsman, 112 Ohio St.3d 151 (2006-Ohio-6522) (habeas proper only for immediate release)
Hunt v. Sheldon, 127 Ohio St.3d 14 (2010-Ohio-4991) (no right to release before expiration; habeas not automatic remedy)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due-process在 parole revocation requires hearing)
State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185 (1995) (new hearing remedy for parole-revocation due-process issues)
State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene, 84 Ohio St.3d 165 (1998) (habeas not available to challenge parole conditions)