State ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State

ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-692.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-692

THE STATE EX REL . HOLMAN, APPELLANT , v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE

AUTHORITY, APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as State ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion

No. 2023-Ohio-692.]

Prohibition and mandamus—Appellant has not shown that he is entitled to relief in

prohibition or mandamus—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed.

(No. 2022-0513—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided March 9, 2023.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 20AP-303, 2022-

Ohio-1251.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In August 2016, the Ohio Parole Board held a hearing and denied parole

to appellant, James M. Holman. The parole board held the hearing at that time

because the Bureau of Sentence Computation (“BOSC”) had incorrectly calculated

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

that Holman would be eligible for parole in September 2016. In fact, Holman was

not eligible for parole until April 2018.

{¶ 2} In 2020, Holman filed a complaint in the Tenth District Court of

Appeals seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus to vacate the result of the 2016

hearing and compel a new hearing. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint,

and Holman now appeals. Holman argues that this court should order his immediate

release. We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.

Background

{¶ 3} In 1996, Holman was sentenced to an 18-month prison term for

trafficking in marijuana. The trial court suspended the sentence and placed Holman

on probation for three years. In 1998, while Holman was on probation, the trial court

convicted Holman of murder, with a firearm specification, and having a weapon

while under disability. The court imposed an aggregate prison sentence of 19 years

to life. The court also revoked Holman’s probation, reinstated the 18-month prison

sentence, and ordered the 1998 sentence to be served consecutively to the 1996

sentence. With a total prison sentence of 20 years and six months to life, Holman

became eligible for parole in April 2018.

{¶ 4} BOSC mistakenly omitted the 18-month sentence in calculating

Holman’s parole-eligibility date, and Holman was given a parole hearing in 2016.

The parole board denied Holman parole at that time and determined that he would

next be considered for parole in 2024.

{¶ 5} In 2020, Holman filed in the court of appeals a complaint for writs of

prohibition and mandamus, alleging that appellee, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority

(“the APA”), had exceeded its jurisdiction and violated the trial court’s sentence by

holding the 2016 parole hearing and moving his parole consideration from 2018 to

2024. Holman sought to vacate the parole board’s 2016 decision and compel a new

hearing.

2

January Term, 2023

{¶ 6} A court-of-appeals magistrate found that BOSC had incorrectly

calculated Holman’s parole-eligibility date by failing to account for the 18-month

sentence. The magistrate recommended issuing a limited writ of mandamus ordering

that Holman’s parole-eligibility date be correctly calculated. But the magistrate

concluded that a writ should not be issued to compel the APA to conduct a new parole

hearing. Holman filed objections to the magistrate’s recommendation. Before the

court of appeals ruled on the objections, the APA filed evidence showing that it had

complied with the magistrate’s recommendation by having Holman’s parole-

eligibility date correctly calculated to be April 1, 2018.

{¶ 7} The court of appeals agreed with the magistrate’s conclusions of law

but dismissed Holman’s claims as moot because Holman’s parole-eligibility date had

been corrected and Holman had received all the relief he was entitled to. Holman

appeals to this court as of right.

Analysis

{¶ 8} As an initial matter, we disregard Holman’s argument that this court

should order his immediate release. That request sounds in habeas corpus, not

mandamus or prohibition. See State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd., 80 Ohio

St.3d 140, 141, 684 N.E.2d 1227 (1997). We already have held that Holman is not

entitled to a writ of habeas corpus under the facts at issue. State ex rel. Holman v.

Collins, 159 Ohio St.3d 537, 2020-Ohio-874, 152 N.E.3d 238, ¶ 7-10.

{¶ 9} We review the court of appeals’ judgment de novo. See State ex rel.

Haynie v. Rudduck, 160 Ohio St.3d 99, 2020-Ohio-2912, 153 N.E.3d 91, ¶ 10.

{¶ 10} Holman argues that the 2016 parole hearing and decision are void

because the APA lacked authority to hold a hearing when he was not yet eligible for

parole. He contends that the APA thus lacked authority in 2016 to schedule his next

parole hearing for 2024. A writ of prohibition may issue to correct the result of a

prior jurisdictionally unauthorized action “[i]f an inferior tribunal patently and

unambiguously lack[ed] jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Baker v. State Personnel Bd. of

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Rev., 85 Ohio St.3d 640, 642, 710 N.E.2d 706 (1999). Holman relies on R.C.

2967.13(A)(1) and (C) to support his claim that the APA lacked jurisdiction. But

those provisions merely establish when a prisoner becomes eligible for parole; they

do not speak to the APA’s authority to conduct a parole hearing, much less prohibit

the APA from holding a parole hearing before a prisoner is eligible for release.

Holman, therefore, has not established that he is entitled to a writ of prohibition

vacating the 2016 decision.

{¶ 11} Holman also argues that he did not receive “meaningful

consideration” for parole in 2016 and that he had a right to be considered for parole

when he first became eligible for parole in 2018. To be entitled to a writ of

mandamus compelling a new parole hearing, Holman must establish by clear and

convincing evidence that he has a clear legal right to a hearing, that the APA has a

clear legal duty to provide one, and that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary

course of the law. See State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 378, 2017-

Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3.

{¶ 12} Holman relies on State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 141

Ohio St.3d 375, 2014-Ohio-4270, 24 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 21, in which this court, quoting

Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 97 Ohio St.3d 456, 2002-Ohio-6719, 780 N.E.2d

548, ¶ 27, recognized “ ‘the expectation [inherent in the language of R.C.

2967.13(A)] that a criminal offender will receive meaningful consideration for

parole.’ ” In Keith, we granted a writ of mandamus requiring the APA to correct any

substantive errors in its records before considering an inmate for parole. Id. at ¶ 32.

But Holman does not allege any substantive defects in the parole consideration he

received in 2016. And again, he has not shown that the APA lacked authority to

consider him for parole in 2016. He therefore has not shown that the APA failed to

meaningfully consider him for parole in 2016. Holman has not demonstrated a clear

right to another parole hearing, or a clear legal duty on the part of the APA to provide

one, prior to the hearing that is already scheduled to take place in 2024.

4

January Term, 2023

{¶ 13} Holman further argues that by setting his next hearing date for 2024,

the APA has effectively extended his sentence by more than six years. In support of

this argument, Holman relies on State ex rel. Fraley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.,

161 Ohio St.3d 209, 2020-Ohio-4410, 161 N.E.3d 646, ¶ 17, in which this court held

that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction “is obliged to execute the

sentence imposed by the court.” But Holman has not shown that the APA has failed

to execute the trial court’s sentence. Holman remains incarcerated on a life sentence,

which he does not dispute was lawfully imposed. Holman fails to support his claim

that the APA unlawfully extended his sentence.

{¶ 14} In his final argument, Holman contends that in response to the

magistrate’s recommendation, the APA falsified its records to state that Holman had

received a parole hearing in 2018. No evidence supports this argument. The

documents submitted by the APA indicate that Holman became eligible for parole on

April 1, 2018. They do not state that Holman received a parole hearing in 2018.

Conclusion

{¶ 15} Because Holman has not shown that he is entitled to relief in

prohibition or mandamus, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, STEWART, and DETERS, JJ., concur.

DONNELLY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined

by BRUNNER, J.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

{¶ 16} As the per curiam opinion states, appellant, prisoner James M.

Holman, became eligible for parole on April 1, 2018. Nevertheless, Holman has

not received the parole hearing to which he has been statutorily entitled since he

became eligible for parole. See R.C. 2967.13(A)(1). I would grant a writ of

mandamus to compel the Ohio Parole Board, which is part of appellee, Ohio Adult

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Parole Authority, to hold a parole hearing. I concur in the judgment denying a writ

of prohibition.

{¶ 17} In fairness to the parole board, it did hold a hearing. But it held the

hearing in August 2016, approximately 19 months before Holman became eligible

for parole, meaning that at the time of the hearing, the board could not have granted

parole. That does not strike me as an adequate or meaningful parole hearing. When

it denied Holman parole in 2016, the board set the next parole-consideration hearing

for August 2024—a date more than six years after Holman became eligible for

parole.

{¶ 18} There is also the considerable matter of timing and evidence. Parole

decisions are based on the circumstances at the time of the parole hearing.

According to a decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in a habeas corpus

case filed by Holman raising the same issue, the board denied Holman parole on

the ground that releasing him “ ‘would not further the interest of justice or be

consistent with the welfare and security of society.’ ” State ex rel. Holman v.

Collins, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 19CA11, (June 25, 2019). The board may have

been quoting Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-07(A)(2) or R.C. 2967.03. I will not

second-guess its decision; the board members likely had ample reasons to reach

that conclusion in August 2016. But the circumstances related to Holman changed

between the day of that premature parole hearing in 2016 and the day when he

actually became eligible for a parole hearing in March 2018—whether the changes

were to Holman’s benefit is unknown because no parole hearing has been held since

he became eligible for parole.

{¶ 19} Holman is a convicted murderer, and there may be legitimate reasons

why he should not be released on parole. But he was entitled to a parole hearing

upon the expiration of his minimum sentence, and he has not received that hearing.

That the board unintentionally held a parole hearing 19 months before Holman

became eligible for parole should not eliminate his opportunity to have a

6

January Term, 2023

meaningful parole hearing as close as possible to the date he became eligible for

parole. I would grant the requested writ of mandamus. Accordingly, I dissent from

the judgment denying it.

BRUNNER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

James M. Holman, pro se.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horváth, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

_________________

7