State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

THE STATE EX REL. JOHNSON, APPELLANT, V. OHIO PAROLE BOARD ET AL.,
APPELLEES.
[Cite as State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Mandamus to compel reinstatement of parole and release from North Central
Correctional Institution denied, when.

(No. 96-2409 -- Submitted August 26, 1997 -- Decided October 22, 1997.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD12-
1608.

Appellant, John Johnson, an inmate at North Central Correctional
Institution, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County for a
writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Ohio Parole Board and Ohio Adult Parole
Authority, to reinstate Johnson's parole and release him from prison. Johnson
claimed that his parole had been erroneously revoked based solely on hearsay.
The court of appeals denied the writ.

This cause is now before the court on Johnson's appeal as of right.
__________________

David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Kort Gatterdam, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Todd R. Marti and J. Eric
Holloway, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
__________________

Per Curiam. Johnson asserts in his various propositions of law that the
court of appeals erred in denying the writ of mandamus because appellees did not
comply with the minimum due process requirements of Morrissey v. Brewer
(1972), 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484, when they revoked his

parole. Even if Johnson's assertions are correct, he would not be entitled to
reversal of the court of appeals' judgment for the following reasons.

Johnson is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus for release from
prison and reinstatement on parole. Habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the
appropriate action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from
prison. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d
186, 188, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349; State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio
St.3d 591, 594, 635 N.E.2d 26, 30. As the court noted in Lemmon, 78 Ohio St.3d
at 188, 677 N.E.2d at 349, "[a] contrary holding would permit inmates seeking
immediate release from prison to employ mandamus to circumvent the statutory
pleading requirements for instituting a habeas corpus action, i.e., attachment of
commitment papers and verification." Although the court of appeals did not base
its judgment on this rationale, a reviewing court will not reverse a correct
judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as a basis thereof.
State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 92, 637 N.E.2d 306, 309.

In addition, even if the court of appeals had considered Johnson's action as
one in habeas corpus rather than mandamus, Johnson was also not entitled to a
writ of habeas corpus because he failed to comply with R.C. 2725.04's verification
requirement. McBroom v. Russell (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 47, 48, 671 N.E.2d 10,
11.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. In
so doing, we need not address the merits of the issues raised by the parties in this
appeal. State ex rel. Gabriel v. Youngstown (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 618, 620, 665
N.E.2d 209, 210.
Judgment affirmed.

2