Case Title: State ex rel. Jefferson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

Citation: 1999-Ohio-163

Docket Number: 19990413

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Jefferson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 86 Ohio St.3d 304, 1999-Ohio-163.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. JEFFERSON, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Jefferson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 
304.] 
Prohibition — Writ sought to prohibit Ohio Adult Parole Authority from taking 
any actions concerning relator — Complaint dismissed, when. 
(No. 99-413 — Submitted June 8, 1999 — Decided September 1, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 98AP-1460. 
 
In 1975, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant, 
Sell Jefferson, of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery, and sentenced him to 
life imprisonment for the aggravated murder and to a term of seven to twenty-five 
years for the aggravated robbery.  In 1981, appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority 
(“APA”) mistakenly paroled Jefferson, and in 1982, the APA granted him a final 
release.  In 1985, the common pleas court convicted Jefferson of grand theft, 
tampering with records, possession of criminal tools, and multiple counts of 
forgery and uttering, and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of seven to 
fifteen years, with this sentence to be served concurrently with the life term for his 
1975 aggravated murder conviction. 
 
In 1987, Jefferson challenged his recommitment on the 1975 aggravated 
murder conviction in habeas corpus, but his claims were denied.  Jefferson v. 
Morris (1988), 48 Ohio App.3d 81, 548 N.E.2d 296; see, also, Jefferson v. Morris 
(1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 714, 534 N.E.2d 76.  The court of appeals ruled that the 
APA’s parole was void and had no effect on Jefferson’s 1975 aggravated murder 
conviction.  48 Ohio App.3d at 82-83, 548 N.E.2d at 298. 
 
In 1998, Jefferson filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Franklin 
County for a writ of prohibition to prevent the APA from taking any further actions 
 
2 
relating to his 1975 convictions, and to further prevent the APA from conducting a 
parole eligibility hearing in the year 2000 on his aggravated murder conviction.  
The APA filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Jefferson’s complaint did 
not comply with the R.C. 2969.25 in forma pauperis filing requirements for 
inmates commencing civil actions or appeals against government entities or 
employees.  The court of appeals granted the APA’s motion based on Jefferson’s 
failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C), and dismissed the complaint. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Sell Jefferson, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Allen P. Adler, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Jefferson asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing 
his complaint for a writ of prohibition.  For the following reasons, Jefferson’s 
assertion is meritless. 
 
Despite Jefferson’s claims to the contrary, the in forma pauperis 
requirements of Sub.H.B. No. 455, i.e., R.C. 2969.21 et seq., are constitutional.  
See Rash v. Anderson (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 349, 351, 686 N.E.2d 505, 506-507 
(Sub.H.B. No. 455 does not violate rights of access to courts, due process, and 
equal protection, and the right against double jeopardy).  And Jefferson does not 
assert that R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to prohibition actions.  See State ex rel. 
Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 422, 696 N.E.2d 594, 595. 
 
Moreover, the issue Jefferson raises here has been previously adjudicated in 
his court of appeals habeas corpus action, and consequently, the collateral estoppel 
aspect of res judicata bars Jefferson from relitigating the issue in this action.  State 
ex rel. Williams v. Brigano (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 413, 414, 678 N.E.2d 568, 569; 
 
3 
Fort Frye Teachers Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1998), 81 Ohio 
St.3d 392, 395, 692 N.E.2d 140, 144. 
 
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.