Moore v. Leonard
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ridenour v. Randle (Ohio 2002)
- Ridenour v. Randle (Ohio 2002)
- Reyes v. Tate (Ohio 2001)
- Duganitz v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 2001)
- Duganitz v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio 2001)
- Reyes v. Tate (Ohio 2001)
- State v. Tranter, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
- Moore v. Leonard (Ohio 1999)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.