Submitted May 16, 2017
from the Court of Appeals for Belmont County, No. 16 BE 0005,
Leodius Clark, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jocelyn K. Lowe and
Kelly N. Brogan, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
1} We affirm the judgment of the Seventh District
Court of Appeals dismissing the petition of appellant,
Leodius Clark, for a writ of mandamus.
2} Clark was indicted on multiple felonies,
including aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and involuntary
manslaughter, in Mahoning County case No. 95 CR 589. He was
convicted and sentenced to an indefinite term of 8 to 25
years in prison. On February 15, 2011, Clark was paroled and
3} In August 2011, he was arrested on new charges
involving drug trafficking and receiving stolen property, in
Mahoning County case No. 11 CR 1078. His parole officer found
him in violation of his parole and imposed the following
sanctions, effective September 29, 2011: 90 days of
electronic monitoring, residence at an address approved by
the Ohio Adult Parole Authority ("APA"), reporting
to his parole officer as ordered, and compliance with all
court orders on the new charges. On September 28, he was
granted bond in order to complete the sanctions. On March 22,
2013, Clark was sentenced to a definite prison term of three
years on the new charges.
4} On December 22, 2015, the APA held a hearing
regarding case No. 95 CR 589. The APA determined that Clark
was not suitable for release and assessed a 36-month
continuance. Clark requested reconsideration, which the APA
5} On March 4, 2016, Clark filed an original action
in the Seventh District Court of Appeals seeking a writ of
mandamus against the APA. He argued that his parole officer
had already imposed punishment for the parole violation when
he subjected Clark to 90 days of electronic monitoring and
that the parole board's decision to keep him in prison
for another 36 months for the same violation therefore
violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. He also asserted
due-process and equal-protection violations and asked the
court of appeals to order the APA to reinstate his parole.
6} On June 13, 2016, the court of appeals dismissed
Clark's action, holding that he had not received multiple
punishments and that he had failed to demonstrate any
constitutional injury. 2016-Ohio-3383, ¶ 8, 12.
7} Clark timely appealed and filed a brief on the
merits. The state filed its brief, and Clark filed a reply
brief. Clark filed a motion for leave to supplement his reply
brief on March 27, 2017, and the state filed a memorandum
opposing the motion.
8} Clark filed his motion for leave for two stated
purposes. First, he wishes to present additional argument,
supported by additional evidence. But S.CtPrac.R. 16.08
prohibits supplementation of merit briefs except in rare
circumstances that Clark has not alleged exist in this case.
Second, he wishes to discuss Johnson v. Smith, 3d
Dist. Marion No. 9-09-04, 2009-Ohio-1914, which his merit and
reply brief do not address. Supplemental authority, as
contemplated by S.CtPracR. 16.08, is relevant authority
"issued after the deadline has passed for filing a
party's merit brief." Johnson, issued in
April 2009, does not qualify.
9} We therefore deny Clark's motion for leave to