Case Title: State ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Citation: 2023-Ohio-692

Docket Number: 2022-0513

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2023-03-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-692.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-692 
THE STATE EX REL. HOLMAN, 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. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion 
No. 2023-Ohio-692.] 
Prohibition and mandamus—Appellant has not shown that he is entitled to relief in 
prohibition or mandamus—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2022-0513—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided March 9, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 20AP-303, 2022-
Ohio-1251. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In August 2016, the Ohio Parole Board held a hearing and denied parole 
to appellant, James M. Holman.  The parole board held the hearing at that time 
because the Bureau of Sentence Computation (“BOSC”) had incorrectly calculated 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
that Holman would be eligible for parole in September 2016.  In fact, Holman was 
not eligible for parole until April 2018. 
{¶ 2} In 2020, Holman filed a complaint in the Tenth District Court of 
Appeals seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus to vacate the result of the 2016 
hearing and compel a new hearing.  The court of appeals dismissed the complaint, 
and Holman now appeals.  Holman argues that this court should order his immediate 
release.  We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. 
Background 
{¶ 3} In 1996, Holman was sentenced to an 18-month prison term for 
trafficking in marijuana.  The trial court suspended the sentence and placed Holman 
on probation for three years.  In 1998, while Holman was on probation, the trial court 
convicted Holman of murder, with a firearm specification, and having a weapon 
while under disability.  The court imposed an aggregate prison sentence of 19 years 
to life.  The court also revoked Holman’s probation, reinstated the 18-month prison 
sentence, and ordered the 1998 sentence to be served consecutively to the 1996 
sentence.  With a total prison sentence of 20 years and six months to life, Holman 
became eligible for parole in April 2018. 
{¶ 4} BOSC mistakenly omitted the 18-month sentence in calculating 
Holman’s parole-eligibility date, and Holman was given a parole hearing in 2016.  
The parole board denied Holman parole at that time and determined that he would 
next be considered for parole in 2024. 
{¶ 5} In 2020, Holman filed in the court of appeals a complaint for writs of 
prohibition and mandamus, alleging that appellee, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority 
(“the APA”), had exceeded its jurisdiction and violated the trial court’s sentence by 
holding the 2016 parole hearing and moving his parole consideration from 2018 to 
2024.  Holman sought to vacate the parole board’s 2016 decision and compel a new 
hearing. 
January Term, 2023 
 
3 
{¶ 6} A court-of-appeals magistrate found that BOSC had incorrectly 
calculated Holman’s parole-eligibility date by failing to account for the 18-month 
sentence.  The magistrate recommended issuing a limited writ of mandamus ordering 
that Holman’s parole-eligibility date be correctly calculated.  But the magistrate 
concluded that a writ should not be issued to compel the APA to conduct a new parole 
hearing.  Holman filed objections to the magistrate’s recommendation.  Before the 
court of appeals ruled on the objections, the APA filed evidence showing that it had 
complied with the magistrate’s recommendation by having Holman’s parole-
eligibility date correctly calculated to be April 1, 2018. 
{¶ 7} The court of appeals agreed with the magistrate’s conclusions of law 
but dismissed Holman’s claims as moot because Holman’s parole-eligibility date had 
been corrected and Holman had received all the relief he was entitled to.  Holman 
appeals to this court as of right. 
Analysis 
{¶ 8} As an initial matter, we disregard Holman’s argument that this court 
should order his immediate release.  That request sounds in habeas corpus, not 
mandamus or prohibition.  See State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd., 80 Ohio 
St.3d 140, 141, 684 N.E.2d 1227 (1997).  We already have held that Holman is not 
entitled to a writ of habeas corpus under the facts at issue.  State ex rel. Holman v. 
Collins, 159 Ohio St.3d 537, 2020-Ohio-874, 152 N.E.3d 238, ¶ 7-10. 
{¶ 9} We review the court of appeals’ judgment de novo.  See State ex rel. 
Haynie v. Rudduck, 160 Ohio St.3d 99, 2020-Ohio-2912, 153 N.E.3d 91, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 10} Holman argues that the 2016 parole hearing and decision are void 
because the APA lacked authority to hold a hearing when he was not yet eligible for 
parole.  He contends that the APA thus lacked authority in 2016 to schedule his next 
parole hearing for 2024.  A writ of prohibition may issue to correct the result of a 
prior jurisdictionally unauthorized action “[i]f an inferior tribunal patently and 
unambiguously lack[ed] jurisdiction.”  State ex rel. Baker v. State Personnel Bd. of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
Rev., 85 Ohio St.3d 640, 642, 710 N.E.2d 706 (1999).  Holman relies on R.C. 
2967.13(A)(1) and (C) to support his claim that the APA lacked jurisdiction.  But 
those provisions merely establish when a prisoner becomes eligible for parole; they 
do not speak to the APA’s authority to conduct a parole hearing, much less prohibit 
the APA from holding a parole hearing before a prisoner is eligible for release.  
Holman, therefore, has not established that he is entitled to a writ of prohibition 
vacating the 2016 decision. 
{¶ 11} Holman also argues that he did not receive “meaningful 
consideration” for parole in 2016 and that he had a right to be considered for parole 
when he first became eligible for parole in 2018.  To be entitled to a writ of 
mandamus compelling a new parole hearing, Holman must establish by clear and 
convincing evidence that he has a clear legal right to a hearing, that the APA has a 
clear legal duty to provide one, and that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of the law.  See State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 378, 2017-
Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 12} Holman relies on State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 141 
Ohio St.3d 375, 2014-Ohio-4270, 24 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 21, in which this court, quoting 
Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 97 Ohio St.3d 456, 2002-Ohio-6719, 780 N.E.2d 
548, ¶ 27, recognized “ ‘the expectation [inherent in the language of R.C. 
2967.13(A)] that a criminal offender will receive meaningful consideration for 
parole.’ ”  In Keith, we granted a writ of mandamus requiring the APA to correct any 
substantive errors in its records before considering an inmate for parole.  Id. at ¶ 32.  
But Holman does not allege any substantive defects in the parole consideration he 
received in 2016.  And again, he has not shown that the APA lacked authority to 
consider him for parole in 2016.  He therefore has not shown that the APA failed to 
meaningfully consider him for parole in 2016.  Holman has not demonstrated a clear 
right to another parole hearing, or a clear legal duty on the part of the APA to provide 
one, prior to the hearing that is already scheduled to take place in 2024. 
January Term, 2023 
 
5 
{¶ 13} Holman further argues that by setting his next hearing date for 2024, 
the APA has effectively extended his sentence by more than six years.  In support of 
this argument, Holman relies on State ex rel. Fraley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 
161 Ohio St.3d 209, 2020-Ohio-4410, 161 N.E.3d 646, ¶ 17, in which this court held 
that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction “is obliged to execute the 
sentence imposed by the court.”  But Holman has not shown that the APA has failed 
to execute the trial court’s sentence.  Holman remains incarcerated on a life sentence, 
which he does not dispute was lawfully imposed.  Holman fails to support his claim 
that the APA unlawfully extended his sentence. 
{¶ 14} In his final argument, Holman contends that in response to the 
magistrate’s recommendation, the APA falsified its records to state that Holman had 
received a parole hearing in 2018.  No evidence supports this argument.  The 
documents submitted by the APA indicate that Holman became eligible for parole on 
April 1, 2018.  They do not state that Holman received a parole hearing in 2018. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 15} Because Holman has not shown that he is entitled to relief in 
prohibition or mandamus, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, STEWART, and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
DONNELLY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined 
by BRUNNER, J. 
_________________ 
DONNELLY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 16} As the per curiam opinion states, appellant, prisoner James M. 
Holman, became eligible for parole on April 1, 2018.  Nevertheless, Holman has 
not received the parole hearing to which he has been statutorily entitled since he 
became eligible for parole.  See R.C. 2967.13(A)(1).  I would grant a writ of 
mandamus to compel the Ohio Parole Board, which is part of appellee, Ohio Adult 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
6 
Parole Authority, to hold a parole hearing.  I concur in the judgment denying a writ 
of prohibition. 
{¶ 17} In fairness to the parole board, it did hold a hearing.  But it held the 
hearing in August 2016, approximately 19 months before Holman became eligible 
for parole, meaning that at the time of the hearing, the board could not have granted 
parole.  That does not strike me as an adequate or meaningful parole hearing.  When 
it denied Holman parole in 2016, the board set the next parole-consideration hearing 
for August 2024—a date more than six years after Holman became eligible for 
parole. 
{¶ 18} There is also the considerable matter of timing and evidence.  Parole 
decisions are based on the circumstances at the time of the parole hearing.  
According to a decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in a habeas corpus 
case filed by Holman raising the same issue, the board denied Holman parole on 
the ground that releasing him “ ‘would not further the interest of justice or be 
consistent with the welfare and security of society.’ ”  State ex rel. Holman v. 
Collins, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 19CA11, (June 25, 2019).  The board may have 
been quoting Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-07(A)(2) or R.C. 2967.03.  I will not 
second-guess its decision; the board members likely had ample reasons to reach 
that conclusion in August 2016.  But the circumstances related to Holman changed 
between the day of that premature parole hearing in 2016 and the day when he 
actually became eligible for a parole hearing in March 2018—whether the changes 
were to Holman’s benefit is unknown because no parole hearing has been held since 
he became eligible for parole. 
{¶ 19} Holman is a convicted murderer, and there may be legitimate reasons 
why he should not be released on parole.  But he was entitled to a parole hearing 
upon the expiration of his minimum sentence, and he has not received that hearing.  
That the board unintentionally held a parole hearing 19 months before Holman 
became eligible for parole should not eliminate his opportunity to have a 
January Term, 2023 
 
7 
meaningful parole hearing as close as possible to the date he became eligible for 
parole.  I would grant the requested writ of mandamus.  Accordingly, I dissent from 
the judgment denying it. 
BRUNNER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
James M. Holman, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horváth, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________