Title: Tucker v. McAninch

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

TUCKER, APPELLANT, v. MCANINCH ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Tucker v. McAninch (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Habeas corpus to compel relator’s immediate release from prison — Petition 
dismissed, when. 
(No. 97-2618 — Submitted June 24, 1998 — Decided July 29, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 97 CA 2339. 
 
In 1983, appellant, Douglas Tucker, was convicted of rape and aggravated 
burglary and sentenced to concurrent prison terms of seven to twenty-five years 
and four to twenty-five years. 
 
In 1997, Tucker filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Ross County for 
a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Tucker 
claimed that appellee Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA”) had revoked his 
parole without complying with the minimum due process standards specified in 
Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484.  
Although Tucker attached a copy of his 1983 conviction, he did not attach any 
parole revocation decision.  Appellees, the APA and Tucker’s prison warden, filed 
a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief 
can be granted. 
 
The court of appeals granted appellees’ motion and dismissed Tucker’s 
habeas corpus petition. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Douglas Tucker, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the 
following reasons.  First, Tucker did not attach commitment papers pertinent to his 
 
2
claim challenging the APA’s parole revocation.  State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 287, 288, 685 N.E.2d 1243, 1244.  Second, “ ‘[a]s long as 
an unreasonable delay has not occurred, the remedy for noncompliance with the 
Morrissey parole-revocation due process requirements is a new hearing, not 
outright release from prison.’ ”  State ex rel. Carrion v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 
(1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 637, 638, 687 N.E.2d 759, 760, quoting State ex rel. 
Jackson v. McFaul (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 188, 652 N.E.2d 746, 749.  Here, as 
in Carrion, the petitioner did not allege any unreasonable delay. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.