Richards v. State , 2018 Ohio 924 ( 2018 )

[Cite as Richards v. State, 2018-Ohio-924.]
COURT OF APPEALS
GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
RONALD RICHARDS JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Petitioner Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs-
Case No. 17 CA 26
STATE OF OHIO
Respondent OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 9, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner For Respondent
RONALD RICHARDS, D.C. #077622 JASON R. FARLEY
Charlotte Correctional Institution Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
33123 Oil Well Road 627 Wheeling Ave.
Punta Gorda, FL 33955 Cambridge, Ohio 43725
Guernsey County, Case No. 17 CA 26 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Petitioner, Ronald Richards, has filed a complaint for writ of mandamus or
writ of prohibition requesting Respondent be ordered to remove a detainer filed against
Petitioner.
FACTS
{¶2} Petitioner was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in 1975, in Ohio. He
was placed on parole in 1979. According to the Florida Department of Corrections
website, Petitioner was convicted of sexual battery with a weapon or force and attempted
murder in 1981. He is serving a 100 year sentence in Florida. Following his Florida
conviction, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority issued a detainer based upon Petitioner’s
alleged parole violation. Petitioner claims he is unable to participate in Florida prison
programs and is ineligible for parole in Florida so long as the detainer is in place.
PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
{¶3} Revised Code Section 2731.04 provides an application for a writ of
mandamus “must be * * * in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying.”
{¶4} “Thus, a petition for a writ of mandamus may be dismissed for failure to
bring the action in the name of the state. Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St. 3d 567,
2004-Ohio-5596, 817 N.E.2d 382, ¶ 34. Accord Maloney v. Sacks, 173 Ohio St. 237, 238,
181 N.E.2d 268 (1962).” Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St. 3d 374, 2015-Ohio-2068, 43 N.E.3d
432, ¶ 10.
{¶5} Here Petitioner has not brought the petition in the name of the state. For
this reason, the petition is subject to dismissal.
Guernsey County, Case No. 17 CA 26 3
{¶6} Additionally, Petitioner has named only the State of Ohio as the Respondent
and has not named the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction as a respondent. It
is the department that has the authority to place a detainer pursuant to Ohio
Administrative Code Section 5120:1-1-31.
Ohio Administrative Code Section 5120:1-1-31 titled Detainers
provides,
(A) The department of rehabilitation and correction shall have the
authority to file a detainer against an offender or otherwise cause the arrest
of an offender by the issuance of a detainer whenever there is reasonable
cause to believe that such offender has violated or is about to violate any of
the terms or conditions of his supervision or sanction and commits an overt
act toward such violation.
{¶7} Even if Petitioner had followed the proper procedures in bringing this
petition, his claims are without merit. Petitioner appears to argue the “statute of
limitations” has expired for pursuing a parole violation. Petitioner cites no caselaw or
statutory authority for the proposition there is a statute of limitations for pursuing a parole
violation once a detainer has issued.
Guernsey County, Case No. 17 CA 26 4
{¶8} For these reasons, we find Petitioner’s petition is procedurally defective and
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The petition is dismissed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Delaney, J. and
Wise, Earle, J. concur