Case Title: State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Citation: 2002-Ohio-1629

Docket Number: 20011895

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-04-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 95 Ohio St.3d 70, 2002-Ohio-
1629.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (2002), 95 Ohio 
St.3d 70.] 
Habeas corpus sought to compel relator’s release from prison — Dismissal of 
petition affirmed — Mandamus sought to have relator’s records revised to 
reflect his correct release date due to good-time credits — Dismissal of 
complaint affirmed. 
(No. 01-1895 — Submitted March 13, 2002 — Decided April 10, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, No. 01CA2801. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In August 2001, appellant, Gregory D. Johnson, filed a petition 
in the Court of Appeals for Scioto County for a writ of habeas corpus or a writ of 
mandamus.  Johnson claimed that in March 1989, he was convicted of felonious 
assault and sentenced to a term of four to fifteen years in prison. In March 1997, a 
decision review panel of appellee Ohio Parole Board decided to continue Johnson’s 
incarceration to the maximum expiration of his sentence in December 2003.  Johnson 
alleged that he was entitled to an earlier release date, i.e., either June 1999 or October 
2002, because of good-time credits he had earned under former R.C. 2967.19.  See 
142 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3100, 3115.  Johnson requested an extraordinary writ either 
to compel his immediate release from prison or to have his records revised to reflect 
his correct release date. 
 
On September 26, 2001, the court of appeals dismissed Johnson’s petition.  
The court of appeals reasoned that Johnson was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus 
because he failed to attach a copy of the cause of his detention and that he was not 
entitled to a writ of mandamus because he requested only release from prison,  a 
remedy cognizable solely in habeas corpus. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
In his appeal as of right, Johnson asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
dismissing his petition.  For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the 
court of appeals. 
 
Despite Johnson’s claims to the contrary, the court of appeals correctly held 
that to the extent he requested a writ of habeas corpus, his petition was defective 
because he failed to attach a copy of the cause of his detention.  Johnson did attach 
the March 1997 minutes reflecting a decision by the Ohio Parole Board to continue 
his incarceration, but this attachment did not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D) because 
Johnson did not attach all of his pertinent commitment papers.  See State ex rel. Bray 
v. Brigano (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 458, 459, 755 N.E.2d 891.  Johnson’s 1989 
sentence, which is the underlying cause of his detention, is pertinent to his claim for 
good-time credits, but he failed to attach a copy of this sentence to his petition. 
 
Johnson was also not entitled to habeas corpus because he was barred by res 
judicata from filing a successive habeas corpus petition when he could have raised 
the same claims in his previous petition.  State ex rel. Childs v. Lazaroff (2001), 90 
Ohio St.3d 519, 520-521, 739 N.E.2d 802; State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Adult Parole 
Auth. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 208, 736 N.E.2d 469. 
 
Moreover, Johnson’s claim of entitlement to an earlier release date is 
meritless.  Former R.C. 2967.19 does not entitle him to release from prison before he 
serves the maximum term of his indeterminate sentence.  Hanes v. Haviland (2001), 
93 Ohio St.3d 465, 755 N.E.2d 898 (habeas corpus); State ex rel. Bealler v. Ohio 
Adult Parole Auth. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 36, 740 N.E.2d 1100 (mandamus). 
 
Johnson does correctly assert that the court of appeals erred in determining 
that he was not entitled to a writ of mandamus because he requested only immediate 
release from prison.  Although it is true that “[h]abeas corpus, rather than mandamus, 
is the proper action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from 
prison,” State ex rel. Adkins v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 171, 
172, 694 N.E.2d 958, Johnson alleged in his petition that his correct release date was 
either June 1999 or October 2002.  Therefore, contrary to the rationale of the court of 
January Term, 2002 
3 
appeals, his claim was broad enough to encompass a correction of his release date, 
i.e., to October 2002, that would not entitle him to immediate release from prison, 
and mandamus would be appropriate to raise this claim. 
 
Nevertheless, reversal of the dismissal of Johnson’s mandamus claim is not 
warranted because former R.C. 2967.19 did not entitle him to an earlier release date 
than that specified by corrections officials.  Hanes and Bealler, supra; State ex rel. 
Stovall v. Jones (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 403, 404, 746 N.E.2d 601, fn. 1, quoting State 
ex rel. Fattlar v. Boyle (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 698 N.E.2d 987 (“ ‘a 
reviewing court is not authorized to reverse a correct judgment merely because 
erroneous reasons were assigned as a basis thereof’ ”). 
 
Based on the foregoing, Johnson’s claims for extraordinary relief in habeas 
corpus or mandamus are meritless, and we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals.1 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Gregory D. Johnson, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Prince, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellees. 
__________________ 
                                                          
 
1 We deny appellees’ motion to strike Johnson’s brief because Johnson 
asserts that he properly served copies of his brief, and judicial review in 
Ohio favors resolution of cases on their merits.  See State ex rel. Wilcox 
v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 412, 414, 667 N.E.2d 1220.  The mere 
fact that appellees might not have received a copy of the brief does not 
establish that Johnson failed to properly serve it.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 
XIV(2)(B) (“Service by mail is complete on mailing”).