Legal Opinion

Coleman v. Stobbs

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 1986No. 85-464PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

A court should apply a two-part test in determining whether the delay of the Adult Parole Authority, in not commencing a final parole revocation hearing, entitles an alleged parole violator to habeas corpus relief. See Goodman v. Keohane (C.A.11, 1981), 663 F. 2d 1044, 1046. First, it must be determined whether the delay was unreasonable. Id. 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. See Hanahan v.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Robert Michael Hanahan v. Dennis M. Luther, Warden and William Pilcher, Chief Probation OfficerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
  2. Oscar Cornelius Goodman v. Thomas F. KeohaneCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Bennett v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & CorrectionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Bobby Brewer v. Eric G. DahlbergCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
  4. Flenoy v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. State v. FergusonOhio Court of Appeals · 1991

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API