Barnett v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Barnett asserts that the court of appeals erred in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment and denying the writ of habeas corpus. Barnett claims that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because following the reversal of his 1991 conviction and sentence for involuntary manslaughter, the APA lacked authority to reparole him under more stringent, conditions than his previous parole conditions. Barnett’s claim, however, is meritless for the following reasons.

*387First, the court of appeals’ reversal of Barnett’s involuntary manslaughter conviction did not remove all factual support for…