The State ex rel. John Grayson, Relator,
Ohio Adult Parole Authority Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, Respondent.
L. Grayson, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and William D. Maynard, for
1} Relator John Grayson has filed an original action
requesting this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering
respondent Ohio Adult Parole Authority to immediately conduct
a parole hearing in which the decision to grant or deny
parole is based on the Ohio Parole Board Guidelines Manual,
effective July 1, 2007 and rescinded as of April 1, 2010.
2} This matter was referred to a magistrate of this
court pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and LocR. 13(M) of the Tenth
District Court of Appeals. The magistrate issued the appended
decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law,
recommending this court deny relator's request for a writ
of mandamus. No objections have been filed to that decision.
3} Finding no error of law or other defect on the
face of the magistrate's decision, this court adopts the
magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings
of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with the
magistrate's decision, we deny relator's requested
writ of mandamus.
and DORRIAN, JJ., concur.
on November 14, 2016
KENNETH W. MACKE MAGISTRATE, Judge.
4} In this original action, relator, an inmate of
the Grafton Reintegration Center ("GRC"), requests
a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Ohio Adult Parole
Authority ("respondent" or "OAPA"), to
immediately conduct a parole hearing in which the decision to
grant or deny parole is based upon the Ohio Parole Board
Guidelines Manual, Third Edition, effective July 1, 2007
("2007 guidelines manual" or "manual"),
that was rescinded by respondent as of April 1, 2010. Relator
contends that respondent's failure to apply the 2007
guidelines manual is a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause
of the United States Constitution.
5} 1. Since 1975, relator has been imprisoned
approximately five times before his current incarceration for
various criminal convictions.
6} 2. Currently, the Bureau of Sentence Computation
of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction
("ODRC") has calculated the maximum expiration of
sentence to be July 12, 2026.
7} 3. Relator's latest incarceration results
from his conviction for drug trafficking in the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas. On January 21, 2010, the court
imposed a prison sentence of eight months. That prison term
expired on September 19, 2010.
8} 4. Since his present incarceration, relator has
appeared before the Ohio Parole Board ("board")
four times and has been denied release in each instance. In
each instance, continued incarceration was justified by a
finding that there is substantial reason to believe that
relator will engage in further criminal conduct if released.
9} 5. The four board hearings during relator's
present incarceration were held respectively on August 9,
2010, June 13, 2011, November 2, 2012, and August 12, 2014.
10} 6. As to each hearing, an ODRC form was
completed by a board member to document the board decision.
The form is captioned "Ohio Parole Board Decision"
and is divided into seven sections.
11} At section 3(A), the board member is asked to
mark a box indicating that "[t]he mandatory factors
indicated in AR 5120 1-1-07 were considered."
12} At section 3(B), the board is asked to provide
the rational for the decision. At section 4, boxes identified
as A through D are provided for marking. The pre-printed
statements beside each box state:
A.* * * There is substantial reason to believe that the
inmate will engage in further criminal conduct, or that the
inmate will not conform to such conditions of release as may
be established under AR 5120 1-1-12.
B.* * * There is substantial reason to believe that due to
the serious nature of the crime, the release of the inmate
into society would create undue risk to public safety, or
that due to the serious nature of the crime, the release of
the inmate would not further the interest of justice or be
consistent with the welfare and security of society.
C. * * * There is substantial reason to believe that due to
serious infractions of division level 5120 9-06 of the
Administrative Code, the release of the inmate would not act
as a deterrent to the inmate or to other institutionalized
inmates from violating institutional rules.
D.* * * Not applicable.
13} 7. The form completed by the board for the
August 9, 2010 hearing indicates that consideration of parole
is "continued" to August 1, 2011. That is, parole
is denied but will be reconsidered on or before ...