Title: State ex rel. Holman v. Collins

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Holman v. Collins, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-874.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-874 
THE STATE EX REL. HOLMAN, APPELLANT, v. COLLINS, WARDEN, 
APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Holman v. Collins, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-874.] 
Habeas corpus—Parole—Habeas corpus appropriate only if petitioner entitled to 
immediate release from confinement—Court of appeals’ judgment granting 
summary judgment and dismissing petition affirmed. 
(No. 2019-1080—Submitted December 10, 2019—Decided March 12, 2020.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 19CA11. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, James M. Holman, appeals the judgment of the Fourth 
District Court of Appeals granting summary judgment to appellee, Emma Collins, 
warden of the Pickaway Correctional Institution, and dismissing Holman’s 
complaint for a writ of habeas corpus.  We affirm. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Background 
{¶ 2} Holman is an inmate at the Pickaway Correctional Institution.  
According to the commitment papers attached to his complaint, in 1996, the 
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas convicted him of trafficking in marijuana.  
The court imposed an 18-month suspended prison sentence and placed Holman on 
probation for three years.  In December 1998, the same court convicted Holman of 
murder with a firearm specification and of having weapons while under disability.  
The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 19 years to life in prison.  The court 
also revoked Holman’s probation from the 1996 case, reinstated the original 18-
month prison sentence, and ordered that his 1998 sentence be served consecutively 
to the 1996 sentence.  According to Holman, because he was sentenced to a total of 
20 years and six months to life in prison, he was not eligible for parole consideration 
until March 2018. 
{¶ 3} In August 2016, the Adult Parole Authority (“APA”) denied Holman 
parole and continued his parole hearing until August 2024.  In April 2019, Holman 
filed in the Fourth District a complaint for a writ of habeas corpus asking the court 
to order his release from prison.  Holman alleged that the APA had exceeded its 
jurisdiction and violated the trial court’s sentence by considering him for parole in 
August 2016 and moving his parole-consideration date from March 2018 to August 
2024.  Holman also alleged that because he had not been considered for parole since 
the completion of his sentence in March 2018, Warden Collins was unlawfully 
restraining him.  The warden filed a motion for summary judgment, which the 
Fourth District granted.  Holman appealed. 
Standard of Review 
{¶ 4} We review a summary-judgment decision denying a writ of habeas 
corpus de novo.  See State ex rel. Schafer v. Wainwright, 156 Ohio St.3d 559, 2019-
Ohio-1828, 130 N.E.3d 268, ¶ 7.  “Summary judgment is appropriate when an 
examination of all relevant materials filed in the action reveals that ‘there is no 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law.’ ”  Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51, 2011-Ohio-
4674, 955 N.E.2d 954, ¶ 12, quoting Civ.R. 56(C). 
Analysis 
{¶ 5} “To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, a party must show that he 
is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty, R.C. 2725.01, and that he is entitled to 
immediate release from prison or confinement.”  State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr, 155 
Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 6} The Fourth District granted summary judgment to the warden and 
dismissed Holman’s complaint on the basis that he has no constitutional or statutory 
right to parole, his maximum sentence had not expired, and he did not challenge 
the trial court’s authority to impose the sentence.  In four overlapping propositions 
of law, Holman argues that the Fourth District erred because his sentence “expired” 
in March 2018 and the APA held a “void” parole-eligibility hearing in August 2016, 
which resulted in an unlawful extension of his sentence until 2024.  Holman further 
argues that since the alleged expiration of his sentence in March 2018, the APA has 
failed to give him meaningful consideration for parole, resulting in his unlawful 
confinement. 
{¶ 7} Holman’s arguments, however, rest on his mistaken belief that his 
sentence “expired” upon the completion of his minimum sentence in March 2018.  
Habeas corpus “is generally available only when the petitioner’s maximum sentence 
has expired and he is being held unlawfully.”  (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Fuller 
v. Eppinger, 153 Ohio St.3d 269, 2018-Ohio-2629, 104 N.E.3d 762, ¶ 7.  “An 
inmate is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus upon completion of his minimum 
sentence.”  (Emphasis sic.)  Id., citing State ex rel. Lockhart v. Sheldon, 146 Ohio 
St.3d 468, 2016-Ohio-627, 58 N.E.3d 1124, ¶ 5.  As the Fourth District recognized, 
Holman’s arguments ignore the fact that his maximum sentence is life 
imprisonment. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 8} In addition, “Ohio law gives a convicted inmate ‘no legitimate claim 
of entitlement to parole prior to the expiration of a valid sentence of  
imprisonment.’ ”  State ex rel. Richard v. Mohr, 135 Ohio St.3d 373, 2013-Ohio-
1471, 987 N.E.2d 650, ¶ 5, quoting State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson, 69 Ohio 
St.3d 489, 490, 633 N.E.2d 1128 (1994).  And because Holman has no inherent 
right to parole, he also “has no similar right to earlier consideration of parole.”  
Ridenour v. Randle, 96 Ohio St.3d 90, 2002-Ohio-3606, 771 N.E.2d 859, ¶ 8; see 
also Mohr at ¶ 5 (an inmate “has no concomitant right to a particular date for the 
consideration of parole, and a change in such dates is not a constitutional 
violation”). 
{¶ 9} Finally, even if Holman could establish that the APA should have held 
his parole hearing in March 2018, after the expiration of his minimum sentence, his 
eligibility for parole consideration does not mean that he is entitled to immediate 
release from prison.  See Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 214, 702 N.E.2d 
1198 (1998) (“earlier consideration of parole is not tantamount to a legal right to 
release from prison”).  “Habeas corpus is appropriate only if the petitioner is 
entitled to immediate release from prison.”  State ex rel. Carrion v. Ohio Adult 
Parole Auth., 80 Ohio St.3d 637, 687 N.E.2d 759 (1998). 
{¶ 10} For these reasons, the Fourth District correctly granted summary 
judgment to the warden and dismissed Holman’s complaint for a writ of habeas 
corpus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
James M. Holman, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
January Term, 2020