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

Citation: 2010-Ohio-4727

Docket Number: 20100676

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-10-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-4727.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-4727 
THE STATE EX REL. MARTIN, 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. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-4727.] 
Appeal from denial of a complaint for a writ of prohibition — Imposition of 
postrelease control by Adult Parole Authority is not an exercise of judicial 
or quasi-judicial authority — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2010-0676 — Submitted September 28, 2010 — Decided October 6, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 94645, 2010-Ohio-1582. 
__________________ 
 
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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
“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. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Tramaine E. Martin, pro se. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Ashley D. Rutherford, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________