Calhoun v. Marion Correctional
Filing
3
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254), and certifying pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis to issue a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). Judge Jack Zouhary on 9/17/2015. (D,L)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Gary Calhoun,
Case No. 1:15 CV 1360
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
-vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY
Marion Correctional,
Respondent.
Pro se Petitioner Gary Calhoun petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (Doc. 1). In 1988, he pled guilty to one count of aggravated murder and was sentenced to
life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 20 years. State v. Calhoun, 2015-Ohio-810,
¶ 2 (Ct. App.). Calhoun says his plea agreement granted him “parolability [sic]” after 20 years of
good-behavior imprisonment (Doc. 1 at 4). Despite good behavior, Calhoun alleges the Parole
Board refused to accept this “plea understanding” and denied parole. Because he only pled guilty
because of this “parolability” understanding, Calhoun argues he was denied his right to appeal his
conviction and sentence (id. at 4, 7). Addressing substantially the same argument, the Ohio court
of appeals denied his motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, noting “even though [Calhoun’s]
plea indicated that he would be eligible for parole after serving 20 years, it also stated that appellant
might never be paroled.” Calhoun, 2015-Ohio-810, at ¶¶ 9–10.
This Court must dismiss a habeas petition if “it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Habeas Rule 4.
Because Calhoun has no constitutional right to or liberty interest in release upon parole, his Petition
fails to allege he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254; see also Inmates of Orient Corr. Inst. v. Ohio State Adult Parole Auth.,
929 F.2d 233, 235–36 (6th Cir. 1991).
This Court denies Calhoun’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), and certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith and there is no basis to issue a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary
JACK ZOUHARY
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
September 17, 2015
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?