Arlie Jones v. William D. Salisbury, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ridenour v. Collins (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2010)
- State, Ex Rel. Thompson v. Clark (Ohio Ct. App. 1982)
- District of Columbia v. Hudson (D.C. 1979)
- Robert J. Scarpa v. U. S. Board of Parole, Walter Dunbar, Chairman (5th Cir. 1973)
- Robert J. Scarpa v. U. S. Board of Parole, Walter Dunbar, Chairman (5th Cir. 1972)
- James D. Boyd v. Tony R. Young, Norman A. Carlson, and Benjamin F. Baer (6th Cir. 1986)
- Simpson v. Gunnell (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1982)
- Carroll Lee Wyatt v. United States Parole Commission (9th Cir. 1978)
- Smaldone v. United States (District Court, D. Kansas 1978)
- Barr v. United States (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1976)
- J. T. Roach v. Board of Pardons and Paroles, State of Arkansas (8th Cir. 1974)
- Joyce v. Gilligan (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1974)
- Frank Paul Riley v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution (6th Cir. 1970)
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
ORDER
This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of shooting with intent to kill in violation of Section 2901.23, Ohio Revised Code, and, on July 31, 1967, was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary for a period of one to twenty years. On July 30, 1968, the Parole Authority denied appellant’s request for parole and continued his case until July, 1971. One of the reasons given by the Parole Authority for denying parole was appellant’s prior criminal record.
Appellant contends the action of the Parole Authority constitutes an unlawful imposition of additional punishment for his prior offense. He also contends this imposition of additional punishment constitutes an unauthorized exercise of a legislative and judicial function by the Parole Authority.
*1327 Both contentions are without merit. In deciding whether to grant parole, it is appropriate to consider a prisoner’s prior criminal record. S.uch consideration does not constitute an imposition of additional punishment, but rather an attempt to assess the factors relevant to a determination of whether parole “would further the interests of justice and be consistent with the welfare and security of society.” Ohio Revised Code, § 2967.03.
Accordingly, appellant’s allegations fail to present a constitutional question which is cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment of the District Court will be, and it hereby is, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.