State ex rel. Mapson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Mapson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

535 N.E.2d 296, 41 Ohio St. 3d 16, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 15

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1673

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 535 N.E.2d 296 (State ex rel. Mapson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Mapson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 535 N.E.2d 296, 41 Ohio St. 3d 16, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 15 (Ohio 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant alleges that the parole board retaliated for his filing of a civil complaint against the officials of the Marion Correctional Institution by denying him parole. In denying the writ of mandamus, the court of appeals determined that there was insufficient evidence that the board’s decision was motivated, in whole or in part, by vindictive considerations. We agree.

A writ of mandamus will not issue when the relator does not demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to the relief sought. State, ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc., v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 42, 15 O.O. 3d 53, 399 N.E. 2d 81. The only evidence that supports appellant’s argument is the fact that appellant did, in fact, file a lawsuit and the parole board did deny him parole thereafter, as alleged in his affidavit filed in support of the complaint in mandamus. However, nothing else in the record before this court demonstrates that a board member inquired as to the lawsuit or used that information¹ in reaching the decision to deny parole.²

[17]*17Accordingly, appellant has failed to establish a clear right to the relief prayed for, and the judgment of the court of appeals; denying the writ, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

²

After the April 13, 1987 parole eligibility hearing, the parole board denied appellant’s parole for the following reasons:

“1. There is substantial reason to [17]*17believe 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 Administrative Rule 5120:1-1-12;

“2. 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 nor be consistent with the welfare and security of society;

" ** *

“4. There is need for additional information upon which to make a release decision at the next hearing.” (Emphasis sic.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appellant alleges that the parole board retaliated for his filing of a civil complaint against the officials of the Marion Correctional Institution by denying him parole. In denying the writ of mandamus, the court of appeals determined that there was insufficient evidence that the board’s decision was motivated, in whole or in part, by vindictive considerations. We agree.

A writ of mandamus will not issue when the relator does not demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to the relief sought. State, ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc., v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 42, 15 O.O. 3d 53, 399 N.E. 2d 81. The only evidence that supports appellant’s argument is the fact that appellant did, in fact, file a lawsuit and the parole board did deny him parole thereafter, as alleged in his affidavit filed in support of the complaint in mandamus. However, nothing else in the record before this court demonstrates that a board member inquired as to the lawsuit or used that information¹ in reaching the decision to deny parole.²

[17]*17Accordingly, appellant has failed to establish a clear right to the relief prayed for, and the judgment of the court of appeals; denying the writ, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

²

After the April 13, 1987 parole eligibility hearing, the parole board denied appellant’s parole for the following reasons:

“1. There is substantial reason to [17]*17believe 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 Administrative Rule 5120:1-1-12;

“2. 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 nor be consistent with the welfare and security of society;

" ** *

“4. There is need for additional information upon which to make a release decision at the next hearing.” (Emphasis sic.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 N.E.2d 296, 41 Ohio St. 3d 16, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mapson-v-ohio-adult-parole-authority-ohio-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack