The State ex rel. McDermott, Appellant,
Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Appellee.
Submitted September 26, 2017
from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 16AP-208,
P. McDermott, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Zoe A. Lamberson,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
1} We affirm the Tenth District Court of
Appeals' denial of the petition for a writ of mandamus
filed by appellant, John P. McDermott. That court correctly
held that McDermott is not entitled to a writ of mandamus to
compel appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority
("APA"), to correct alleged inaccuracies in its
records and to hold a new parole hearing.
and Procedural History
2} In 1981, McDermott was convicted of a Geauga
County murder and was sentenced to life in prison with parole
eligibility after 15 years. The APA has denied McDermott
parole several times.
3} McDermott's most recent parole hearing was
held on August 14, 2015. The parole board's written
decision and the minutes from the hearing indicate that the
board considered the mandatory factors listed in Ohio
Adm.Code 5120:1-1-07 and found "substantial reason to
believe that due to the serious nature of the crime, the
release of [McDermott] into society would create undue risk
to public safety, or * * * would not further the interest of
justice or be consistent with the welfare and security of
society." The parole board provided the following
rationale for denying parole:
The offender brutally stabbed the female victim to death
while her minor children were in the house. He has completed
programming, but lacks insight from said programming. The
offender has gone some time without an infraction and does
have a supportive family. After considering all relevant
factors, the offender is not suitable for release and is
continued 36 months.
4} On March 21, 2016, McDermott filed in the Tenth
District Court of Appeals a petition for a writ of mandamus
to which he attached several exhibits, alleging that the APA
had considered inaccurate information when denying him parole
in 2012 and in 2015. He contends that the APA had based its
decisions to deny parole on its erroneous belief that he had
a history of stalking the victim and that he violated a
protection order when he entered the victim's home at the
time of the murder. He seeks an order compelling the APA to
correct "this false material" and provide him a
"new and meaningful hearing completely free of any
influence generated by these falsehoods."
5} The case was referred to a magistrate, who
recommended that the writ be denied because McDermott
"is not able to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that [the APA] is considering inaccurate evidence
and denying him parole based on that inaccurate
evidence." 2017-Ohio-754, ¶ 47.
6} The court of appeals adopted the magistrate's
findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied the