Summary
finding that a written statement of grounds on which parole denied after hearing is sufficient in the face of an allegation that the notice "sheds no light" on reason for denial
Summary of this case from Nedea v. VoinovichOpinion
No. 84-1454
Decided May 8, 1985.
Mandamus — Denial of parole — Writ seeking to compel specification of grounds for rejection of parole denied, when.
IN MANDAMUS.
This is an action in mandamus originating in this court against John W. Shoemaker, Chief of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority.
Relator, Everett Hunt, Jr., was accorded a parole hearing in December 1981, in which parole was denied. Pursuant to Ohio Adm. Code 5120:1-1-11(G), relator was presented with a written notice stating the grounds upon which the Parole Board based its decision. Relator apparently feels such notice was not sufficiently specific, and contends that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires respondent to provide him with specific reasons for rejecting his parole.
Relator argues also that he should have been granted a hearing in 1977. He brings this action to compel respondent to set a hearing date and to furnish him with a particularized statement as to the grounds for refusing parole.
Everett Hunt, Jr., pro se. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and John C. Stamatakos, for respondent.
"The writ of mandamus * * * does not lie if performance of the act prayed for is impossible * * *." State, ex rel. Brown, v. Bd. of County Commrs. (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 62 [50 O.O.2d 159], syllabus. We therefore cannot order the Parole Board to set a hearing for relator to be held in 1977, even assuming he was entitled to it. Furthermore, since relator was considered for parole in 1981, "[a] writ of mandamus will not issue to compel a public official to perform a legal duty which has been completed." State, ex rel. Breaux, v. Court of Common Pleas (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 164 [4 O.O.3d 352].
Relator has likewise failed to establish that he is entitled to more of an explanation for denial of parole than he was given. While Ohio Adm. Code 5120:1-1-11(G)(1) requires the Parole Board to issue "[a] written notice stating the grounds" for refusal of prisonerss parole, we note that in the present case relator only alleges that the notice given "sheds no light" on why the board decided as it did. Relator presents nothing more than this bare allegation. In the absence of a contrary showing, we assume the actions of the Parole Board were taken in compliance with the applicable statutes and administrative regulations. Relator has not proved the board abused its discretion. Consequently, relator has not demonstrated "a clear legal right" to the relief he seeks. See State, ex rel. Heller, v. Miller (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 6 [15 O.O.3d 3], paragraph one of the syllabus.
Therefore, the writ of mandamus is denied.
Writ denied.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.