Arlie Jones, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. Salisbury, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee., 422 F.2d 1326 (6th Cir. 1970)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (March 06, 1970)

Docket number: 19569


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/arlie-salisbury-chillicothe-institution-36741283
Id. vLex: VLEX-36741283

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Frank Paul Riley, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee., 422 F.2d 397 (6th Cir. 1970)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - J. T. Roach, Appellant, v. Board of Pardons and Paroles, State of Arkansas, Et Al., Appellees., 503 F.2d 1367 (8th Cir. 1974)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Carroll Lee Wyatt, Petitioner-Appellant, v. United States Parole Commission, Respondent-Appellee., 571 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1978)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Robert J. Scarpa, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U. S. Board of Parole, Walter Dunbar, Chairman, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees., 468 F.2d 31 (5th Cir. 1972)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Robert J. Scarpa, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U. S. Board of Parole, Walter Dunbar, Chairman, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees., 477 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1973)

Text:

Arlie Jones, in pro. per.

Paul W. Brown, Atty. Gen., Stephen M. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for appellee on brief.

Before CELEBREZZE, McCREE and COMBS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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.

Both contentions are without merit. In deciding whether to grant parole, it is appropriate to consider a prisoner's prior criminal record. Such 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.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access