Case ID: ohio-st-3d_126/html/0506-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. Martin, Appellant, v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Appellee.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 126 Ohio St.3d 506, 2010-Ohio-4727.]
    (No. 2010-0676
    — Submitted September 28, 2010
    — Decided October 6, 2010.)
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Tramaine E. Martin, for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA”), from continuing its supervision of him on postrelease control. Martin’s prohibition claim lacks merit because “neither the APA nor its parole officers exercised judicial or quasi-judicial authority in imposing postrelease control” on him. State ex rel. McGrath v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 100 Ohio St.3d 72, 2003-Ohio-5062, 796 N.E.2d 526, ¶7. In addition, Martin “had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his sentence to raise his claim that he did not receive proper notification about postrelease control at his sentencing hearing.” Briseno v. Cook, 121 Ohio St.3d 38, 2009-Ohio-308, 901 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1.

Tramaine E. Martin, pro se.

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Ashley D. Rutherford, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.