Title: Moore v. Leonard

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

MOORE, APPELLANT, v. LEONARD, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Moore v. Leonard (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Habeas corpus to compel prison warden to reparole relator after revocation of 
parole — Petition dismissed, when. 
(No. 98-2631 — Submitted March 10, 1999 — Decided April 7, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-98-58. 
 
According to appellant, Ronald Moore, he was released from prison on 
parole in 1996.  In 1997, Moore was arrested and charged with possession of 
drugs, possession of criminal tools, carrying a concealed weapon, and having a 
weapon while under a disability.  In May 1997, following a parole revocation 
hearing, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA”) revoked Moore’s parole.  The 
APA found that Moore had violated his parole conditions by carrying a box 
containing approximately twenty pounds of marijuana and being a passenger in a 
van where a box of marijuana was within his reach.  In November 1997, the 
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas dismissed without prejudice the 1997 
charges against Moore.  The APA refused Moore’s requests that he be reinstated 
on parole because the charges leading to his revocation had been dismissed. 
 
In 1998, Moore filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to compel 
appellee, his prison warden, to reparole him.  In November 1998, the court of 
appeals sua sponte dismissed Moore’s petition.  The court of appeals held that 
Moore’s petition failed to state a claim upon which a writ of habeas corpus can be 
granted.  The court of appeals noted: 
 
“In the instant case, it is clear that based upon the allegations and 
documents attached by petitioner that all factual support for the revocation of his 
parole was not removed by dismissal of the charges.  Petitioner’s parole was 
revoked based on the finding that he failed to act as a responsible law abiding 
 
2
citizen by virtue of his arrest, and based on petitioner’s possession or control of a 
narcotic drug.” 
__________________ 
 
Ronald Moore, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons 
stated in its judgment entry.  Parole may be revoked even though criminal charges 
based on the same facts are dismissed, the defendant is acquitted, or the conviction 
is overturned, unless all factual support for the revocation is removed.  State ex 
rel. Carrion v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 637, 638, 687 
N.E.2d 759, 760.  In order to avoid dismissal of an improper-revocation claim 
based on the foregoing exception, an inmate must plead specific facts to show how 
dismissal of the criminal charges removed all factual support for the parole 
revocation.  State ex rel. Hickman v. Capots (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 324, 544 
N.E.2d 639.  Moore, however, did not plead specific facts showing that all factual 
support for his parole revocation had been removed by the dismissal of his 
criminal charges.  In fact, the attachments to his petition established that not all 
factual support for his revocation had been removed by the dismissal of his 
criminal charges.  See Barnett v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 
385, 387, 692 N.E.2d 135, 136-137. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.