Title: State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. JOHNSON, APPELLANT, V. OHIO PAROLE BOARD ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Mandamus to compel reinstatement of parole and release from North Central 
Correctional Institution denied, when. 
 
(No. 96-2409 — Submitted August 26, 1997 — Decided October 22, 1997.) 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD12-
1608. 
 
Appellant, John Johnson, an inmate at North Central Correctional 
Institution, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County for a 
writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Ohio Parole Board and Ohio Adult Parole 
Authority, to reinstate Johnson’s parole and release him from prison.  Johnson 
claimed that his parole had been erroneously revoked based solely on hearsay.  
The court of appeals denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before the court on Johnson’s appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Kort Gatterdam, Assistant 
Public Defender, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Todd R. Marti and J. Eric 
Holloway, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Johnson asserts in his various propositions of law that the 
court of appeals erred in denying the writ of mandamus because appellees did not 
comply with the minimum due process requirements of Morrissey v. Brewer 
(1972), 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484, when they revoked his 
 
2
parole.  Even if Johnson’s assertions are correct, he would not be entitled to 
reversal of the court of appeals’ judgment for the following reasons. 
 
Johnson is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus for release from 
prison and reinstatement on parole.  Habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the 
appropriate action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from 
prison.  State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 
186, 188, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349; State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio 
St.3d 591, 594, 635 N.E.2d 26, 30.  As the court noted in Lemmon, 78 Ohio St.3d 
at 188, 677 N.E.2d at 349, “[a] contrary holding would permit inmates seeking 
immediate release from prison to employ mandamus to circumvent the statutory 
pleading requirements for instituting a habeas corpus action, i.e., attachment of 
commitment papers and verification.”  Although the court of appeals did not base 
its judgment on this rationale, a reviewing court will not reverse a correct 
judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as a basis thereof.  
State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 92, 637 N.E.2d 306, 309. 
 
In addition, even if the court of appeals had considered Johnson’s action as 
one in habeas corpus rather than mandamus, Johnson was also not entitled to a 
writ of habeas corpus because he failed to comply with R.C. 2725.04’s verification 
requirement.  McBroom v. Russell (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 47, 48, 671 N.E.2d 10, 
11. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  In 
so doing, we need not address the merits of the issues raised by the parties in this 
appeal.  State ex rel. Gabriel v. Youngstown (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 618, 620, 665 
N.E.2d 209, 210. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
3
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.