[Cite as Stallings v. Adult Parole Auth., 2012-Ohio-1207.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 97761

WILLIS STALLINGS 

PETITIONER 

vs. 

ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY 

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

PETITION DISMISSED

Writ of Habeas Corpus 

Motion No. 451708 

Order No. 452893 

RELEASE DATE: March 19, 2012 
FOR PETITIONER 

Willis Stallings, pro se 

2250 Community College Ave., Apt. 232 

Cleveland, OH 44115 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT 

Michael DeWine 

Ohio Attorney General 

By: M. Scott Criss 

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Justice Section 

150 E. Gay Street, 16th Fl. 

Columbus, OH 43215 
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.: 

{¶1} On December 2, 2011, the petitioner, Willis Stallings, commenced this 

habeas corpus action against the Ohio Adult Parole Authority to compel his immediate 

release from postrelease control because the trial court improperly imposed postrelease 

control in the underlying case, State v. Stallings, Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court 

Case No. CR-444002. On January 27, 2012, the respondent moved to dismiss. 

Stallings never filed a reply. For the following reasons, this court grants the motion to 

dismiss. 

{¶2} In the underlying case in early 2004, Stallings pleaded guilty to felonious 

assault on a peace officer, receiving stolen property (motor vehicle), vandalism, and 

breaking and entering. The trial court sentenced him to a total of eight years. The trial 

court also ordered the following in the sentencing entry: “Post release control is part of 

this prison sentence for the maximum period allowed for the above felony (s) under R.C. 

2967.28.” 

{¶3} Stallings finished serving his prison sentence in September 2011 and is now 

on postrelease control. He argues that because the trial court did not impose postrelease 

control properly, that portion of his sentence is void, and habeas corpus will lie for his 

immediate release from postrelease control. 

{¶4} Patterson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147, 

898 N.E.2d 950, controls. In this case the trial court convicted Patterson of sexual 
battery and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and sentenced him to five years in 

prison. The sentence also included “up to 5 years of post release control.” Id. at ¶ 2. 

When he was released from prison, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority placed Patterson on 

five years of postrelease control. Shortly after his release, Patterson filed a petition for 

habeas corpus in the court of appeals to compel the termination of his postrelease 

control, because the trial court had failed to notify him that he might be subject to 

postrelease control. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. Patterson v. Ohio 

Adult Parole Auth., 5th Dist. No. 08-CA-33, 2008-Ohio-2620. 

{¶5} On appeal, the supreme court ruled that Patterson is not entitled to the writ of 

habeas corpus, because the writ is not available when there is an adequate remedy at law. 

He “had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his sentence to raise his claim 

that he did not receive proper notification about his postrelease control at his sentencing 

hearing.” Id. at ¶ 8. The court concluded that claims concerning improper notification 

of postrelease control cannot “be raised by extraordinary writ when the sentencing entry 

includes postrelease control, however inartfully it might be phrased.” Id. 

{¶6} Stallings’s claim is indistinguishable from Patterson. Both claimed that the 

trial court improperly imposed postrelease control. The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled 

that habeas corpus will not lie in such cases to terminate postrelease control. 

{¶7} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit 

“specifying the details of the claim” as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel. 

Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 
914 N.E.2d 402. 

{¶8} Accordingly, this court dismisses the petition for habeas corpus. Petitioner 

to pay costs. This court directs the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals to 

serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 

Civ.R. 58(B). 

Petition dismissed. 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR