# Sykes v. Kreiger

> Ohio Supreme Court · December 13, 1972 · 32 Ohio St. 2d 132

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6754996

## Case

- **Full name:** Sykes v. Kreiger
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 13, 1972
- **Citations:** 32 Ohio St. 2d 132; 61 Ohio Op. 2d 384; 290 N.E.2d 180; 1972 Ohio LEXIS 371
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Brown, Corrigan, Herbert, Leach, Neill, Schneider, Stern
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6754996

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
The Court of Appeals correctly determined that habeas corpus is not available to review the action of the Adult Parole Authority. In re Varner (1957), 166 Ohio St. 340 , 142 N. E. 2d 846 ; Guerrieri v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St. 2d 75 , 204 N. E. 2d 60 ; In re Copely (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 35 , 278 N. E. 2d 358 . *
Additionally, the sole facts of record indicate that the “Adult Parole Authority has carefully considered all of the factors brought to its attention concerning this case.” "While the only signature appearing to support that statement is that of the chief of that Authority, we cannot assume therefrom that he is the only person who considered the matter. “* * * The Adult Parole Authority consists of its chief, a parole supervision section, a probation development and supervision section, an administration and research section, and a parole board.” R. C, 5149.02.
Furthermore, R. C. 2967.15, which prescribes the procedure to be followed in parole violation cases, does not specifically require that the Parole Board hear and decide all cases of parole revocation.
Finally, under the meager facts presented, and in view of the broad powers accorded the chief of the Adult Parole Authority by R. C. Chapter 5149, we do not consider this case a suitable vehicle for an in-depth analysis of this changing area of the law.
Judgment affirmed.
O’Neill, C. J., Schneider, Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Leach and Brown, JJ., concur.
These cases, as did the one at bar, arose prior to the announcement of Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U. S. 471 , 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6754996. Public record. Not legal advice.