Case Title: State ex rel. Richard v. Mohr

Citation: 2013-Ohio-1471

Docket Number: 2012-1902

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Richard v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1471.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-1471 
THE STATE EX REL. RICHARD; CALO ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MOHR, DIR.,  
ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Richard v. Mohr,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1471.] 
Parole—Mandamus—Writ to compel parole hearing on particular date—Inmates 
have no constitutional or statutory right to parole or to be considered for 
parole on a particular date—Writ denied. 
(No. 2012-1902—Submitted April 11, 2013—Decided April 16, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 11AP-0780. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion 
of appellees, Gary C. Mohr, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 
Correction, Harry Hageman, chief of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority, and 
Cynthia Mausser, chair of the Ohio Parole Board, to dismiss the petition of 
appellants, Dennis Calo and Ronald Jolly, for a writ of mandamus.  Calo and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Jolly’s claims are defective because they have no constitutional or statutory right 
to parole or to be considered for parole on a particular date.  Therefore, they have 
no clear legal right to relief and can show no clear legal duty on the part of the 
appellees. 
{¶ 2} Calo and Jolly, as well as relator Donald Richard,1 filed an original 
action in mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals.  Appellees filed a 
motion to dismiss.  The court of appeals dismissed, and Calo and Jolly filed this 
appeal. 
{¶ 3} Calo and Jolly appear to be arguing that they should be eligible for 
parole hearings at intervals set by the version of Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-10(B) 
effective as of January 2, 1979, rather than the current version, which did not 
become effective until after they were incarcerated.  Under the former version of 
the regulation, according to Cato and Jolly, they were entitled to second parole 
hearings within five years of their first hearings and at yearly intervals after that.  
1978-1979 Ohio Monthly Record 4-435.  Because their second parole hearings 
occurred beyond the five years, they claim to have been deprived of a number of 
parole hearings. 
{¶ 4} To be entitled to the requested extraordinary relief, Calo and Jolly 
must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the 
part of the respondents to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 
2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6.  Calo and Jolly must prove that they are 
entitled to the writ by clear and convincing evidence.  Id. at ¶ 13. 
{¶ 5} Ohio law gives a convicted inmate “no legitimate claim of 
entitlement to parole prior to the expiration of a valid sentence of imprisonment.”  
State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson, 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 490, 633 N.E.2d 1128 
                                          
 
1 Richard did not participate in the appeal, apparently because he had been declared a vexatious 
litigator last year.  See In re Richard, 133 Ohio St.3d 1419, 2012-Ohio-4870, 976 N.E.2d 911.  
January Term, 2013 
 
3
(1994).  The statute granting the parole authority discretion to grant parole, R.C. 
2967.03, “creates no expectancy of parole or a constitutional liberty interest 
sufficient to establish a right of procedural due process.” Id., citing Hattie v. 
Anderson, 68 Ohio St.3d 232, 233, 626 N.E.2d 67 (1994); State ex rel. Adkins v. 
Capots, 46 Ohio St.3d 187, 188, 546 N.E.2d 412 (1989).  It follows that, as an 
inmate has no constitutional or statutory right to parole, he has no concomitant 
right to a particular date for the consideration of parole, and a change in such 
dates is not a constitutional violation.  State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of 
Rehab. & Corr., 81 Ohio St.3d 267, 268, 690 N.E.2d 887 (1998). 
{¶ 6} In short, application of the new parole guidelines to Calo and Jolly 
does not constitute a violation of any constitutionally or statutorily protected 
liberty interest.  They have failed to assert a clear legal right to the relief they seek 
or a clear legal duty on the part of the appellees to provide relief.  We therefore 
affirm the court of appeals’ dismissal of their case. 
{¶ 7} Calo and Jolly also filed a motion to disqualify the attorney general 
from representing the appellees here.  They make vague accusations of collusion 
and impropriety, but have submitted no evidence whatsoever to back up these 
accusations.  The motion is denied. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Dennis Calo and Ronald Jolly, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and David A. Lockshaw Jr., Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellees. 
______________________