Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State ex rel. Grayson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

March 2, 2017

The State ex rel. John Grayson, Relator,
v.
Ohio Adult Parole Authority Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, Respondent.

         IN MANDAMUS

         On brief:

          John L. Grayson, pro se.

         On brief:

          Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and William D. Maynard, for respondent.

          DECISION

          LUPER SCHUSTER, J.

         {¶ 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the decision to grant or deny parole is based on the Ohio Parole Board Guidelines Manual, effective July 1, 2007 and rescinded as of April 1, 2010.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.

         Writ of mandamus denied.

          SADLER and DORRIAN, JJ., concur.

         APPENDIX

         Rendered on November 14, 2016

         IN MANDAMUS

         MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

          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.

         Findings of Fact:

         {¶ 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.