Ridenour v. Randle

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 96 Ohio St.3d 90.]

RIDENOUR, APPELLANT, v. RANDLE, WARDEN, APPELLEE.

[Cite as Ridenour v. Randle, 2002-Ohio-3606.]

Habeas corpus sought to compel relator’s release from prison on parole—Court

of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed, when—Testing constitutionality of

parole eligibility requirements not cognizable in state habeas corpus—

Alleged breach of plea agreement not timely raised.

(No. 2002-0154—Submitted June 26, 2002—Decided July 31, 2002.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 01CA2589.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶1} In April 1972, the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, upon

the guilty plea of appellant, William L. Ridenour, convicted him of two counts of

murder in the second degree, one count of shooting to kill, and two counts of assault

with a deadly weapon. The common pleas court sentenced Ridenour to two life

terms and a term of 1 to 20 years and two terms of 1 to 5 years, all to be served

consecutively. Ridenour subsequently escaped from prison, and following his

recapture, he was convicted in May 1978 of two counts of kidnapping, one count

of felonious assault, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of escape.

The common pleas court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 4 to 25 years,

to be served consecutively to his 1972 sentence.

{¶2} In 1995, the Ohio Parole Board denied parole for Ridenour. In January

1999, a hearing officer recommended to the Parole Board that the board again deny

parole. After Ridenour objected to the hearing officer’s findings and

recommendation, a hearing officer responded that the objections were meritless:

{¶3} “In reviewing the Review Screening Recommendation Sheet and the

facts presented to the Parole Board, I must point out that the facts presented to the

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Parole Board indicate that you forced individuals at gunpoint who were outside the

victim’s residence and forced them to allow you into the residence where you

eventually murdered two individuals which constitutes part of the offense behavior

for which you are currently in prison. In the hearing officer’s perspective, the

movement of those individuals from point one to point two at gunpoint constitutes

kidnapping. As the Parole Board’s guidelines indicate, the hearing officer is to

review offense behavior, not necessarily the criminal charges for which you were

found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

{¶4} In March 2001, Ridenour filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in

the Court of Appeals for Ross County. In his memorandum in support of the

petition, which he incorporated into his petition, he raised the following claims: (1)

under former R.C. 2967.13 and 5145.01, he was entitled to parole eligibility at the

expiration of ten years of imprisonment, (2) the sentence for his escape conviction

expired because of his accumulated good-time credits earned under former R.C.

2967.19, (3) the Parole Board, in the 1999 review screening recommendation sheet

of one of its hearing officers, breached his 1972 plea agreement by treating his

convictions for assault with a deadly weapon as conduct indicative of kidnapping,

and (4) the Parole Board could not constitutionally deny parole based upon the

nature and circumstances of his offenses. Ridenour claimed that based on these

claims, the judgments of his sentencing courts had already been satisfied and the

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction no longer had authority to

incarcerate him.

{¶5} After the court of appeals denied the first motion of appellee,

Chillicothe Correctional Institution Warden Michael Randle, to dismiss the

petition, it sua sponte converted Randle’s second dismissal motion into a motion

for summary judgment and gave the parties the opportunity to submit additional

documentation pursuant to Civ.R. 56. In December 2001, the court of appeals

granted Randle’s motion for summary judgment and denied the writ.

2

January Term, 2002

{¶6} In his appeal as of right, Ridenour asserts that the court of appeals

erred in denying the writ. For the following reasons, Ridenour’s assertion is

meritless, and the court of appeals correctly denied the writ.

{¶7} Ridenour’s claims challenging the Parole Board’s determinations

denying him parole do not entitle him to release from prison. Habeas corpus is

generally appropriate in the criminal context only if the prisoner is entitled to

immediate release from prison. Douglas v. Money (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 348, 349,

708 N.E.2d 697. Testing the constitutionality of parole eligibility requirements as

applied to Ridenour is not cognizable in state habeas corpus. Rodgers v. Capots

(1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 435, 436, 619 N.E.2d 685; cf. Moore v. Leonard (1999), 85

Ohio St.3d 189, 190, 707 N.E.2d 867 (“Parole may be revoked even though

criminal charges based on the same facts are dismissed, the defendant is acquitted,

or the conviction is overturned, unless all factual support for the revocation is

removed”).

{¶8} Furthermore, because Ridenour has no constitutional or statutory right

to parole, he has no similar right to earlier consideration of parole. State ex rel.

Vaughn v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 378, 379, 708 N.E.2d

720. In fact, earlier consideration of parole is not tantamount to a legal right to

release from prison, which Ridenour was required to establish to be entitled to

extraordinary relief in habeas corpus. Heddleston v. Mack (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d

213, 214, 702 N.E.2d 1198.

{¶9} Moreover, former R.C. 2967.19 and former 5145.02 merely reduce the

minimum term of Ridenour’s indeterminate sentences; they do not entitle him to

release from prison before he serves the maximum term, i.e., life in prison, provided

in his sentence. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (2002), 95

Ohio St.3d 70, 72, 765 N.E.2d 356; State ex rel. Bealler v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

(2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 36, 740 N.E.2d 1100. Similarly, R.C. 5145.01 also does not

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

entitle Ridenour to release. State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997),

80 Ohio St.3d 425, 427, 687 N.E.2d 283.

{¶10} In addition, Ridenour has or had adequate legal remedies in the

ordinary course of law to raise his claim of a breached plea agreement. See State

ex rel. Tran v. McGrath (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 47, 676 N.E.2d 108; State ex rel.

Seikbert v. Wilkinson (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 491, 633 N.E.2d 1128. “

‘[H]abeas corpus, like other extraordinary writ actions, is not available where there

is an adequate remedy at law.’ ” Agee v. Russell (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 540, 544,

751 N.E.2d 1043, quoting Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 380, 383, 667

N.E.2d 1194.

{¶11} Finally, Ridenour waived those additional claims that he raises on

appeal but did not raise in the court of appeals. Brown v. Leonard (1999), 86 Ohio

St.3d 593, 716 N.E.2d 183.

{¶12} 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.

__________________

William L. Ridenour, pro se.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

__________________

4