State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee - 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. BRANTLEY, APPELLANT, v. GHEE ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Mandamus to compel employees of Ohio Adult Parole Authority to remove a
detainer against relator from the parole authority's records -- Writ
denied, when.
(No. 97-2237 -- Submitted September 15, 1998 -- Decided November 10, 1998.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APD04-530.

In 1997, appellant, Gregory Brantley, filed a motion in the Court of Appeals
for Franklin County to compel appellees, employees of the Ohio Adult Parole
Authority ("APA"), to remove a detainer against Brantley from APA records.
Brantley alleged that in 1990, the APA filed a detainer against him after he was
arrested on new criminal charges. Brantley waived his right to an on-site parole
revocation hearing. According to Brantley, he was entitled to removal of the
detainer from his APA records under former Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-17 and
5120:1-1-31 because the APA's detainer was based on hearsay.

The court of appeals granted appellees' motion for judgment on the
pleadings and denied the writ.

This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
__________________

Gregory Brantley, pro se.
__________________

Per Curiam. Brantley asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the
writ of mandamus. For the following reasons, however, Brantley's contentions
lack merit.

As the court of appeals correctly held, at the time Brantley filed his motion,
neither former Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-17 nor Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-31

required the APA to cancel the detainer. Former Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-17, as
cited by Brantley, did not impose any duty to cancel detainers. Ohio Adm.Code
5120:1-1-31(E) authorizes the APA to choose to initiate revocation proceedings in
lieu of canceling a detainer. Brantley conceded in his motion that he was
ultimately convicted of the new criminal charges that were the basis for the
detainer. The APA has no legal duty to hold a final parole revocation hearing for
Brantley during the time he is incarcerated on new criminal charges. State ex rel.
Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 121, 609 N.E.2d 546.

In addition, original actions for extraordinary relief like a writ of mandamus
must be commenced by filing a complaint or petition rather than a motion. State
ex rel. Simms v. Sutula (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 110, 111, 689 N.E.2d 564; Myles v.
Wyatt (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191, 580 N.E.2d 1080, 1081. Brantley erroneously
filed a motion rather than a complaint or petition.

Finally, contrary to Brantley's claims, no additional discovery was
necessary for the court of appeals to resolve appellees' motion for judgment on the
pleadings. See State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of
Commrs. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 134, 136, 684 N.E.2d 1222, 1224 ("In order to be
entitled to dismissal under Civ.R. 12[C], it must appear beyond doubt that relator
can prove no set of facts warranting the requested relief, after construing all
material factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences
therefrom in relator's favor." [Emphasis added.]).

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

2