OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

Seebeck, Appellant, v. Zent, Warden, Appellee. 

[Cite as Seebeck v. Zent (1993), Ohio St.3d .] 

Habeas corpus denied when petitioner fails to attack the 

 jurisdiction of the court -- Mandamus to compel release on 

 parole after being declared a parole violator -- Writ 

 denied, when. 

 (No. 93-1184 -- Submitted October 18, 1993 -- Decided 

December 29, 1993.) 

 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. 

CA92-12-033. 

 Appellant, Gregg Seebeck, filed a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Madison County, 

claiming that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority ("APA") failed to 

conduct a formal parole revocation hearing for him within the 

reasonable time required by R.C. 2967.15. 

 Seebeck was convicted of aggravated burglary in Clark 

County, Ohio, in 1985. The court sentenced him to ten to 

twenty-five years' incarceration. He was paroled on July 22, 

1991. He was again arrested on January 6, 1992 for violating 

the conditions of his parole. Following a March 13, 1992 

formal parole revocation hearing, the APA revoked Seebeck's 

parole based on these parole violations. Seebeck seeks his 

release on parole, alleging that he was entitled to a formal 

hearing within sixty days of his arrest. 

 This cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right. 

 

 Gregg Seebeck, pro se. 

 Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, Donald G. Keyser, 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 

 Per Curiam. Seebeck fails to raise a jurisdictional claim 

in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. When the 

appellant does not attack the jurisdiction of the court, a writ 

of habeas corpus will be denied. R.C. 2725.05; Stahl v. 

Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 351, 354, 4 O.O.3d 485, 

487-488, 364 N.E.2d 286, 288. However, even if the court 

considers this petition as one for a writ of mandamus, the 

relief must still be denied. 
 R.C. 2967.15 requires the authority "to make a 

determination of the case of the parolee alleged to be a 

violator of the conditions of his pardon or parole within a 

reasonable time" or release him on parole. (Emphasis added.) 

Seebeck alleges he was entitled to a parole revocation hearing 

within sixty days of his arrest, since he is a technical parole 

violator. He bases his argument on the 1974 federal district 

court case of Inmates' Councilmatic Voice v. Rogers (Dec. 12, 

1974), N.D. Ohio No. C72-1052, unreported. This case has been 

vacated, Rogers v. Inmates' Councilmatic Voice (1975), 422 U.S. 

1031, 95 S. Ct. 2646, 45 L. Ed.2d 687; a new order issued on 

August 19, 1975; modified upon appeal on September 9, 1976, at 

541 F.2d 633; and explained upon further appeal by intervenor 

plaintiffs in Inmates' Councilmatic Voice v. Wilkinson (Mar. 

25, 1993), C.A.6, Nos. 92-3218 and 92-3275, unreported, 1993 WL 

87431, table citation (1993), 989 F.2d 499. 

 In Inmates' Councilmatic Voice v. Wilkinson, the court 

stated that all jurisdiction in the original Inmates' 

Councilmatic Voice case had terminated at least by 1981. With 

the status of the federal law unclear on the sixty-day rule, we 

hold that the standard to be used in Ohio is the reasonable 

time standard, developed in Coleman v. Stobbs (1986), 23 Ohio 

St.3d 137, 139, 23 OBR 292, 293, 491 N.E.2d 1126, 1128, and 

modified in Flenoy v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1990), 56 Ohio 

St.3d 131, 134, 564 N.E.2d 1060, 1063-1064, and in State ex 

rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 

121, 127-128, 609 N.E.2d 546, 550-551. 

 Coleman v. Stobbs presented a two-part test for 

determining whether a delay of a parole revocation hearing by 

the Adult Parole Authority entitles an alleged parole violator 

to relief. First, the court must determine whether the delay 

was reasonable. "This involves the consideration and balancing 

of three factors: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reasons 

for the delay, and (3) the alleged parole violator's assertion 

of his right to a hearing within a reasonable period of time." 

Id. at 139, 23 OBR at 293, 491 N.E.2d at 1128. Second, the 

court must determine whether the delay somehow prejudiced the 

alleged parole violator. The court identified three protected 

interests in this context: 

 "(1) [P]revention of oppressive prehearing incarceration, 

(2) minimization of anxiety and concern of the alleged parole 

violator, and (3) limitation of the possibility that delay will 

impair the accused parole violator's defense at his final 

parole revocation hearing." Id. 

 Although the Flenoy case modified the Coleman test by 

placing the prejudice factor on the same plane as the 

reasonableness-of-time factor, we held in Taylor that, 

"prejudice should ordinarily receive substantial emphasis 

because the remedy - - outright release of a felon * * * is so 

drastic." 66 Ohio St. 3d at 128, 609 N.E.2d at 551. Seebeck 

has shown neither unreasonable delay nor prejudice. Moreover, 

there is no "60 day rule." 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is 

affirmed. 

 

 Judgment affirmed. 

 Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. 
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.