Title: Sullivan v. Bunting

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Sullivan v. Bunting, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3923.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-3923 
SULLIVAN, APPELLANT, v. BUNTING, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Sullivan v. Bunting, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3923.] 
Habeas corpus—Writ available only to enforce right to immediate release—Writ 
unavailable to challenge conditions of parole—New hearing, not release, 
is remedy for violation of due process in parole revocation. 
(No. 2012-0601—Submitted August 22, 2012—Decided September 5, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-12-02. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
petition of appellant, James Sullivan, for a writ of habeas corpus.  Habeas corpus 
“is proper in the criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate 
release from prison or some other physical confinement.”  Scanlon v. Brunsman, 
112 Ohio St.3d 151, 2006-Ohio-6522, 858 N.E.2d 411, ¶ 4.  Sullivan’s prison 
sentence has not expired, and he “has no inherent or constitutional right to be 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
released before its expiration.”  Hunt v. Sheldon, 127 Ohio St.3d 14, 2010-Ohio-
4991, 935 N.E.2d 846, ¶ 1. 
{¶ 2} For his claim that the Adult Parole Authority improperly revoked 
his parole, Sullivan cites no authority supporting release from prison based on a 
misstatement in the revocation order concerning when he was most recently 
released on parole.  And insofar as Sullivan claims a violation of his due process 
rights, “[a]s long as an unreasonable delay has not occurred, the remedy for 
noncompliance with the Morrissey [v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 
L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)] parole-revocation due process requirements is a new hearing, 
not outright release from prison.”  State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 
185, 188, 652 N.E.2d 746 (1995).  Nor did an unreasonable delay occur before he 
was afforded a constitutionally compliant parole-revocation hearing. 
{¶ 3} Moreover, the evidence submitted in the court of appeals 
established that Sullivan agreed to the pertinent parole conditions, he violated 
them, he received notification of his parole-revocation hearing, he admitted that 
he had violated one of his parole conditions and that the evidence introduced at 
the hearing established that he had violated another parole condition, and his 
parole was properly revoked. 
{¶ 4} Furthermore, insofar as Sullivan claims that the evidence obtained 
by his parole officer’s search of his e-mail account constituted a criminal act and 
that evidence obtained from the search could not be used to revoke his parole, he 
is mistaken.  As a condition of his parole, Sullivan agreed to warrantless searches 
of his person, motor vehicle, or residence at any time and acknowledged that 
pursuant to R.C. 2967.131, officers of the Adult Parole Authority could conduct 
warrantless searches of his personal property or property that he had been given 
permission to use.  See R.C. 2967.131(C). 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 5} Finally, habeas corpus is generally not available to challenge 
parole conditions that allegedly restrained a petitioner’s liberty.  See State ex rel. 
Smirnoff v. Greene, 84 Ohio St.3d 165, 168, 702 N.E.2d 423 (1998). 
{¶ 6} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Sullivan’s 
habeas corpus petition, and we affirm that judgment. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
James D. Sullivan, pro se. 
Mike DeWine, Attorney General, and Gregory T. Hartke, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________