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

Citation: 2001-Ohio-231

Docket Number: 20001310

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-01-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Bealler v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 91 Ohio St.3d 36, 2001-
Ohio-231.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BEALLER, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE 
AUTHORITY, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Bealler v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 
36.] 
Mandamus sought to compel relator’s release from prison – Court of appeals’ 
denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 00-1310 — Submitted December 12, 2000 — Decided January 31, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-992. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In 1983, appellant, Arthur Bealler, appeared in the 
Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas and pled guilty to the first three 
counts of an indictment charging him, inter alia, with rape.  Bealler was convicted 
and sentenced to an aggregate term of twenty-one to seventy-five years in prison.  
In 1991, 1992, 1997, and 1999, following hearings, the Ohio Parole Board denied 
Bealler parole. 
 
In 1999, Bealler filed an “application for a writ of mandamus” in the Court 
of Appeals for Columbiana County.  Bealler claimed that appellee, Ohio Adult 
Parole Authority (“APA”), had failed to reduce his maximum sentence in 
accordance with former R.C. 2967.19 and 2967.191 et seq. and that the APA had 
erroneously applied the 1998 parole guidelines to him.  After the court transferred 
the case to the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Bealler amended his 
“application” by additionally claiming that under former R.C. 5145.02, he was 
entitled to be released because he had already served his minimum term of 
incarceration, as reduced by the good time he had earned.  In June 2000, the court 
of appeals denied the writ. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
 
In this cause now before us upon an appeal as of right, Bealler asserts that 
the court of appeals erred in denying the writ because of the APA’s refusal to 
comply with former R.C. 2967.19 and former R.C. 5145.02 and the APA’s ex 
post facto imposition of the 1998 parole guidelines.  Bealler’s assertions are 
meritless. 
 
First, neither former R.C. 2967.19 nor former R.C. 5145.02 reduces the 
maximum term of Bealler’s indeterminate sentence.  These provisions also do not 
entitle Bealler to release from prison before he serves the maximum term 
provided in his sentence.  See State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 425, 427, 687 N.E.2d 283, 284-285, and cases cited therein. 
 
Second, application of the challenged parole guidelines to Bealler does not 
constitute ex post facto imposition of punishment.  Douglas v. Money (1999), 85 
Ohio St.3d 348, 349, 708 N.E.2d 697, 698; State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. 
of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 267, 268, 690 N.E.2d 887, 888. 
 
Third, to the extent that Bealler claims that he should be released from 
prison, habeas corpus is the appropriate action.  State ex rel. Carter v. Ohio Adult 
Parole Auth. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 496, 733 N.E.2d 609. 
 
Finally, original actions for extraordinary relief like a writ of mandamus 
must be commenced by filing a complaint or petition, not by filing a “motion” or 
an “application.”  See State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 521, 
522, 700 N.E.2d 1258, 1259; State ex rel. Graves v. Ney (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 
234, 718 N.E.2d 1289, 1290. 
 
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. 
__________________ 
 
Arthur Bealler, pro se. 
January Term, 2001 
 
3 
 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Philip A. King, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________