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

Citation: 1998-Ohio-589

Docket Number: 19981094

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. YATES, APPELLANT, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION 
AND CORRECTION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Yates v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d 
___.] 
Mandamus to compel Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to 
allow relator to be given a polygraph examination with the test results 
placed in his prison records to support relator’s claimed entitlement to an 
earlier parole release hearing — Writ denied, when. 
(No. 98-1094  — Submitted September 28, 1998 – Decided December 2, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APD08-1133. 
 
In 1985, appellant, Danny V. Yates, was convicted of felonious assault, 
having a weapon while under a disability, and accompanying specifications.  The 
trial court sentenced Yates to an aggregate prison term of eleven to eighteen years, 
with eleven years of actual incarceration.  In 1995, Yates was released on parole.  
In 1996, after Yates violated his parole conditions, the Adult Parole Authority 
revoked his parole and ordered his return to prison.  Yates’s next parole release 
hearing was scheduled for 1999. 
 
In 1997, in conjunction with a review of Yates’s prison records under Ohio 
Adm.Code 5120:1-1-20 to determine whether he should have an earlier parole 
release hearing, Yates requested that he be examined by a polygraph expert at his 
family’s expense.  Yates wanted the polygraph test results placed in his prison 
records to support his claimed entitlement to an earlier parole release hearing. 
 
After his request for a polygraph examination was denied, Yates filed a 
“motion” in the court of appeals “for issuance of writ of mandamus in form of 
appeal.” Yates requested a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Ohio 
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, its director, Reginald Wilkinson, 
 
2
and Marion Correctional Institution Warden Christine Money, to allow him to be 
given a polygraph examination.  Yates claimed that the writ should be granted 
based on Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-26.  Yates also alleged that he was merely 
seeking the same opportunity to provide mitigating evidence that other inmates 
had been afforded.  Following the filing of Yates’s motion, an Ohio Parole Board 
hearing officer determined that an earlier parole release hearing for Yates was not 
warranted.  After the parties filed merit briefs and evidence, the court of appeals 
denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Danny V. Yates, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Brian M. Zets, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellees. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Yates asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the 
writ.  For the following reasons, however, Yates’s claims lack merit. 
 
First, as the court of appeals concluded, neither Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-261 
nor any other administrative regulation imposes a clear legal duty on appellees to 
permit Yates to be given a polygraph examination at his request. 
 
Second, as we held in State ex rel. Sheppard v. Koblentz (1962), 174 Ohio 
St. 120, 21 O.O.2d 384, 187 N.E.2d 40, syllabus, “[t]here is no clear legal duty on 
the part of [corrections officers] to permit a prisoner to subject himself to  * * * a 
polygraph test in order to demonstrate his innocence of the crime for which he was 
convicted; and, the allowing of such test[ ] being strictly within the discretion of 
such officer[s], a writ of mandamus does not lie to compel such test[ ].” 
 
3
 
Third, Yates did not establish any violation of his constitutional rights to 
due process and equal protection.  Because Yates has no constitutional or statutory 
right to parole, he has no similar right to earlier consideration of parole.  State ex 
rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 267, 268, 
690 N.E.2d 887, 888. 
 
Finally, Yates should have filed a complaint or petition for a writ of 
mandamus instead of a “motion  * * * in [the] form of appeal.”  See State ex rel. 
Thomas v. Ghee (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 193, 690 N.E.2d 6, 7. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied the writ.  
Accordingly, 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. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-26(B) provides: 
 
“Whenever a request is made by an inmate or staff member of an agency or 
person outside the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for an inmate to 
take a polygraph examination, the following shall apply: 
 
“(1)  As a general rule, no such examination shall be authorized without a 
valid court order. 
 
“(2)  The agency or person making the request shall be advised of the 
general rule and of the right to appeal the application of the rule to the facts of the 
particular case to the Director or his designee. 
 
“(3)  The appeal shall be submitted in writing, with the reasons therefor, to 
the Managing Officer.  The Managing Officer shall forthwith forward the appeal 
with his recommendations to the Director or his designee. 
 
4
 
“(4)  No inmate or staff member shall be compelled to submit to a polygraph 
examination without his consent.”