State ex rel. Yates v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. - 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. YATES, APPELLANT, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTION ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as State ex rel. Yates v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d
___.]
Mandamus to compel Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to
allow relator to be given a polygraph examination with the test results
placed in his prison records to support relator's claimed entitlement to an
earlier parole release hearing -- Writ denied, when.
(No. 98-1094 -- Submitted September 28, 1998 Decided December 2, 1998.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APD08-1133.

In 1985, appellant, Danny V. Yates, was convicted of felonious assault,
having a weapon while under a disability, and accompanying specifications. The
trial court sentenced Yates to an aggregate prison term of eleven to eighteen years,
with eleven years of actual incarceration. In 1995, Yates was released on parole.
In 1996, after Yates violated his parole conditions, the Adult Parole Authority
revoked his parole and ordered his return to prison. Yates's next parole release
hearing was scheduled for 1999.

In 1997, in conjunction with a review of Yates's prison records under Ohio
Adm.Code 5120:1-1-20 to determine whether he should have an earlier parole
release hearing, Yates requested that he be examined by a polygraph expert at his
family's expense. Yates wanted the polygraph test results placed in his prison
records to support his claimed entitlement to an earlier parole release hearing.

After his request for a polygraph examination was denied, Yates filed a
"motion" in the court of appeals "for issuance of writ of mandamus in form of
appeal." Yates requested a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, its director, Reginald Wilkinson,

and Marion Correctional Institution Warden Christine Money, to allow him to be
given a polygraph examination. Yates claimed that the writ should be granted
based on Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-26. Yates also alleged that he was merely
seeking the same opportunity to provide mitigating evidence that other inmates
had been afforded. Following the filing of Yates's motion, an Ohio Parole Board
hearing officer determined that an earlier parole release hearing for Yates was not
warranted. After the parties filed merit briefs and evidence, the court of appeals
denied the writ.

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

Danny V. Yates, pro se.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Brian M. Zets, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellees.
__________________

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

First, as the court of appeals concluded, neither Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-261
nor any other administrative regulation imposes a clear legal duty on appellees to
permit Yates to be given a polygraph examination at his request.

Second, as we held in State ex rel. Sheppard v. Koblentz (1962), 174 Ohio
St. 120, 21 O.O.2d 384, 187 N.E.2d 40, syllabus, "[t]here is no clear legal duty on
the part of [corrections officers] to permit a prisoner to subject himself to * * * a
polygraph test in order to demonstrate his innocence of the crime for which he was
convicted; and, the allowing of such test[ ] being strictly within the discretion of
such officer[s], a writ of mandamus does not lie to compel such test[ ]."

2

Third, Yates did not establish any violation of his constitutional rights to
due process and equal protection. Because Yates has no constitutional or statutory
right to parole, he has no similar right to earlier consideration of parole. State ex
rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 267, 268,
690 N.E.2d 887, 888.

Finally, Yates should have filed a complaint or petition for a writ of
mandamus instead of a "motion * * * in [the] form of appeal." See State ex rel.
Thomas v. Ghee (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 193, 690 N.E.2d 6, 7.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied the writ.
Accordingly, 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.
FOOTNOTE:
1. Ohio
Adm.Code
5120-9-26(B) provides:

"Whenever a request is made by an inmate or staff member of an agency or
person outside the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for an inmate to
take a polygraph examination, the following shall apply:

"(1) As a general rule, no such examination shall be authorized without a
valid court order.

"(2) The agency or person making the request shall be advised of the
general rule and of the right to appeal the application of the rule to the facts of the
particular case to the Director or his designee.

"(3) The appeal shall be submitted in writing, with the reasons therefor, to
the Managing Officer. The Managing Officer shall forthwith forward the appeal
with his recommendations to the Director or his designee.

3