Legal Opinion

Rose v. Haskins

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1970No. 69-503PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

It is well established in Ohio law that parole is a matter of grace. While parole is a release from confinement, the parolee is still in the legal custody of the Department of Mental Hygiene and Correction. In re Varner, 166 Ohio St. 340. See, also, State, ex rel. London, v. Pardon and Parole Comm., 2 Ohio St. 2d 224; Barnhard v. Maxwell, 2 Ohio St. 2d 308. As such, a parolee has only privileges and not the claimed constitutional rights afforded him prior to conviction. Petitioner has urged these same issues in the federal courts and has been denied relief. See Rose v. Haskins, 388 F. 2d 91.

We…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mempa v. RhaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Herbert E. Rose v. E. B. Haskins, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
  3. Barnhart v. MaxwellOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  4. State ex rel. London v. Ohio Pardon & Parole CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1965

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. DelvallieOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
  2. State v. EatonOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
  3. Frank Paul Riley v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent, Marion Correctional InstitutionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
  4. Parker v. CardwellOhio Court of Appeals · 1972
  5. Murphy v. Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Court of Claims · 1999

1 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