Court Opinion

ID: 9514800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:51:44.712552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:20.893377
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Chief Justice
(concurring specially)
[¶ 27.] I totally agree with Justice Ko-nenkamp that a person on parole is not *129entitled to bring a habeas corpus petition. However, if there is any evidence that such person is being physically confined or otherwise restrained of her liberty, then a habeas action is warranted. Because the scant record evidence indicates that Ren-nich may in fact be physically confined to the Kingsbury Manor, I concur with the majority opinion.
[¶ 28.] Although Rennich was ostensibly paroled, a condition of her parole agreement specifically states that she is to be “confined to the Kingsbury Memorial Man- or for medical assistance and care.” This provision implies the State intended that Rennich would remain within the facility; accordingly, such a condition was a restraint on her freedom. Additional support for this conclusion lies in the fact that the State has never argued Rennich was not in custody. In fact, Rennieh’s motion for transport to her habeas hearing, which “move[d] the court to allow [her] to attend the hearing,” was denied. This also suggests that Rennich’s freedom was restrained by the State, notwithstanding her status as a parolee.
[¶ 29.] Because there was evidence that Rennich was “confined” by the State, a habeas petition was an appropriate vehicle with which to reach the merits of the case.