State ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-692.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-692THE STATE EX REL . HOLMAN, APPELLANT , v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE
AUTHORITY, APPELLEE.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as State ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion
No. 2023-Ohio-692.]
Prohibition and mandamus—Appellant has not shown that he is entitled to relief in
prohibition or mandamus—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed.
(No. 2022-0513—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided March 9, 2023.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 20AP-303, 2022-
Ohio-1251.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} In August 2016, the Ohio Parole Board held a hearing and denied parole
to appellant, James M. Holman. The parole board held the hearing at that time
because the Bureau of Sentence Computation (“BOSC”) had incorrectly calculated
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
that Holman would be eligible for parole in September 2016. In fact, Holman was
not eligible for parole until April 2018.
{¶ 2} In 2020, Holman filed a complaint in the Tenth District Court of
Appeals seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus to vacate the result of the 2016
hearing and compel a new hearing. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint,
and Holman now appeals. Holman argues that this court should order his immediate
release. We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.
Background
{¶ 3} In 1996, Holman was sentenced to an 18-month prison term for
trafficking in marijuana. The trial court suspended the sentence and placed Holman
on probation for three years. In 1998, while Holman was on probation, the trial court
convicted Holman of murder, with a firearm specification, and having a weapon
while under disability. The court imposed an aggregate prison sentence of 19 years
to life. The court also revoked Holman’s probation, reinstated the 18-month prison
sentence, and ordered the 1998 sentence to be served consecutively to the 1996
sentence. With a total prison sentence of 20 years and six months to life, Holman
became eligible for parole in April 2018.
{¶ 4} BOSC mistakenly omitted the 18-month sentence in calculating
Holman’s parole-eligibility date, and Holman was given a parole hearing in 2016.
The parole board denied Holman parole at that time and determined that he would
next be considered for parole in 2024.
{¶ 5} In 2020, Holman filed in the court of appeals a complaint for writs of
prohibition and mandamus, alleging that appellee, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority
(“the APA”), had exceeded its jurisdiction and violated the trial court’s sentence by
holding the 2016 parole hearing and moving his parole consideration from 2018 to
2024. Holman sought to vacate the parole board’s 2016 decision and compel a new
hearing.
2
January Term, 2023
{¶ 6} A court-of-appeals magistrate found that BOSC had incorrectly
calculated Holman’s parole-eligibility date by failing to account for the 18-month
sentence. The magistrate recommended issuing a limited writ of mandamus ordering
that Holman’s parole-eligibility date be correctly calculated. But the magistrate
concluded that a writ should not be issued to compel the APA to conduct a new parole
hearing. Holman filed objections to the magistrate’s recommendation. Before the
court of appeals ruled on the objections, the APA filed evidence showing that it had
complied with the magistrate’s recommendation by having Holman’s parole-
eligibility date correctly calculated to be April 1, 2018.
{¶ 7} The court of appeals agreed with the magistrate’s conclusions of law
but dismissed Holman’s claims as moot because Holman’s parole-eligibility date had
been corrected and Holman had received all the relief he was entitled to. Holman
appeals to this court as of right.
Analysis
{¶ 8} As an initial matter, we disregard Holman’s argument that this court
should order his immediate release. That request sounds in habeas corpus, not
mandamus or prohibition. See State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd., 80 Ohio
St.3d 140, 141, 684 N.E.2d 1227 (1997). We already have held that Holman is not
entitled to a writ of habeas corpus under the facts at issue. State ex rel. Holman v.
Collins, 159 Ohio St.3d 537, 2020-Ohio-874, 152 N.E.3d 238, ¶ 7-10.
{¶ 9} We review the court of appeals’ judgment de novo. See State ex rel.
Haynie v. Rudduck, 160 Ohio St.3d 99, 2020-Ohio-2912, 153 N.E.3d 91, ¶ 10.
{¶ 10} Holman argues that the 2016 parole hearing and decision are void
because the APA lacked authority to hold a hearing when he was not yet eligible for
parole. He contends that the APA thus lacked authority in 2016 to schedule his next
parole hearing for 2024. A writ of prohibition may issue to correct the result of a
prior jurisdictionally unauthorized action “[i]f an inferior tribunal patently and
unambiguously lack[ed] jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Baker v. State Personnel Bd. of
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Rev., 85 Ohio St.3d 640, 642, 710 N.E.2d 706 (1999). Holman relies on R.C.
2967.13(A)(1) and (C) to support his claim that the APA lacked jurisdiction. But
those provisions merely establish when a prisoner becomes eligible for parole; they
do not speak to the APA’s authority to conduct a parole hearing, much less prohibit
the APA from holding a parole hearing before a prisoner is eligible for release.
Holman, therefore, has not established that he is entitled to a writ of prohibition
vacating the 2016 decision.
{¶ 11} Holman also argues that he did not receive “meaningful
consideration” for parole in 2016 and that he had a right to be considered for parole
when he first became eligible for parole in 2018. To be entitled to a writ of
mandamus compelling a new parole hearing, Holman must establish by clear and
convincing evidence that he has a clear legal right to a hearing, that the APA has a
clear legal duty to provide one, and that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of the law. See State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 378, 2017-
Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3.
{¶ 12} Holman relies on State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 141
Ohio St.3d 375, 2014-Ohio-4270, 24 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 21, in which this court, quoting
Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 97 Ohio St.3d 456, 2002-Ohio-6719, 780 N.E.2d
548, ¶ 27, recognized “ ‘the expectation [inherent in the language of R.C.
2967.13(A)] that a criminal offender will receive meaningful consideration for
parole.’ ” In Keith, we granted a writ of mandamus requiring the APA to correct any
substantive errors in its records before considering an inmate for parole. Id. at ¶ 32.
But Holman does not allege any substantive defects in the parole consideration he
received in 2016. And again, he has not shown that the APA lacked authority to
consider him for parole in 2016. He therefore has not shown that the APA failed to
meaningfully consider him for parole in 2016. Holman has not demonstrated a clear
right to another parole hearing, or a clear legal duty on the part of the APA to provide
one, prior to the hearing that is already scheduled to take place in 2024.
4
January Term, 2023
{¶ 13} Holman further argues that by setting his next hearing date for 2024,
the APA has effectively extended his sentence by more than six years. In support of
this argument, Holman relies on State ex rel. Fraley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.,
161 Ohio St.3d 209, 2020-Ohio-4410, 161 N.E.3d 646, ¶ 17, in which this court held
that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction “is obliged to execute the
sentence imposed by the court.” But Holman has not shown that the APA has failed
to execute the trial court’s sentence. Holman remains incarcerated on a life sentence,
which he does not dispute was lawfully imposed. Holman fails to support his claim
that the APA unlawfully extended his sentence.
{¶ 14} In his final argument, Holman contends that in response to the
magistrate’s recommendation, the APA falsified its records to state that Holman had
received a parole hearing in 2018. No evidence supports this argument. The
documents submitted by the APA indicate that Holman became eligible for parole on
April 1, 2018. They do not state that Holman received a parole hearing in 2018.
Conclusion
{¶ 15} Because Holman has not shown that he is entitled to relief in
prohibition or mandamus, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, STEWART, and DETERS, JJ., concur.
DONNELLY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined
by BRUNNER, J.
_________________
DONNELLY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 16} As the per curiam opinion states, appellant, prisoner James M.
Holman, became eligible for parole on April 1, 2018. Nevertheless, Holman has
not received the parole hearing to which he has been statutorily entitled since he
became eligible for parole. See R.C. 2967.13(A)(1). I would grant a writ of
mandamus to compel the Ohio Parole Board, which is part of appellee, Ohio Adult
5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Parole Authority, to hold a parole hearing. I concur in the judgment denying a writ
of prohibition.
{¶ 17} In fairness to the parole board, it did hold a hearing. But it held the
hearing in August 2016, approximately 19 months before Holman became eligible
for parole, meaning that at the time of the hearing, the board could not have granted
parole. That does not strike me as an adequate or meaningful parole hearing. When
it denied Holman parole in 2016, the board set the next parole-consideration hearing
for August 2024—a date more than six years after Holman became eligible for
parole.
{¶ 18} There is also the considerable matter of timing and evidence. Parole
decisions are based on the circumstances at the time of the parole hearing.
According to a decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in a habeas corpus
case filed by Holman raising the same issue, the board denied Holman parole on
the ground that releasing him “ ‘would not further the interest of justice or be
consistent with the welfare and security of society.’ ” State ex rel. Holman v.
Collins, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 19CA11, (June 25, 2019). The board may have
been quoting Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-07(A)(2) or R.C. 2967.03. I will not
second-guess its decision; the board members likely had ample reasons to reach
that conclusion in August 2016. But the circumstances related to Holman changed
between the day of that premature parole hearing in 2016 and the day when he
actually became eligible for a parole hearing in March 2018—whether the changes
were to Holman’s benefit is unknown because no parole hearing has been held since
he became eligible for parole.
{¶ 19} Holman is a convicted murderer, and there may be legitimate reasons
why he should not be released on parole. But he was entitled to a parole hearing
upon the expiration of his minimum sentence, and he has not received that hearing.
That the board unintentionally held a parole hearing 19 months before Holman
became eligible for parole should not eliminate his opportunity to have a
6
January Term, 2023
meaningful parole hearing as close as possible to the date he became eligible for
parole. I would grant the requested writ of mandamus. Accordingly, I dissent from
the judgment denying it.
BRUNNER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
_________________
James M. Holman, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horváth, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
_________________
7