Title: State ex rel. Keith v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

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. Keith v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4246.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-4246 
THE STATE EX REL. KEITH, APPELLANT, v. DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION 
AND CORRECTION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Keith v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 
2018-Ohio-4246.] 
Criminal law—Inmate failed to show that substantively inaccurate information 
remains in his parole record, prejudicing his parole applications—Court of 
appeals’ judgment denying motions for show-cause and contempt orders 
affirmed. 
(No. 2018-0247—Submitted May 22, 2018—Decided October 23, 2018.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 12AP-408. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this appeal, appellant, Bernard R. Keith, again seeks to compel 
appellees, Ohio Adult Parole Authority and the Chair of the Ohio Parole Board, to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
conduct a new parole hearing.  He appeals the judgment of the Tenth District Court 
of Appeals denying motions to issue a show-cause order and to hold appellees in 
contempt.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶ 2} On May 8, 2012, Keith, then an inmate at the Richland Correctional 
Institution, filed an original action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals seeking a 
writ of mandamus.  He alleged that he had been denied meaningful parole 
consideration because appellees had relied on information in his parole record that 
was incorrect.  The court of appeals denied the writ.  State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio 
Adult Parole Auth., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-408, 2013-Ohio-2514 (“Keith 
I”).  We reversed and ordered appellees to review Keith’s parole record and correct 
any information that was incorrect and was used to consider him for parole.  141 
Ohio St.3d 375, 2014-Ohio-4270, 24 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 32. 
{¶ 3} On November 30, 2015, Keith filed a second mandamus action, in 
which he alleged that appellees had not complied with this court’s mandate to 
correct erroneous information and give his parole application “meaningful 
consideration.”  State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. 
Franklin No. 15AP-1080, 2017-Ohio-4406, ¶ 11 (“Keith II”).  The court of appeals 
denied the writ.  Id. at ¶ 15.  Keith filed two separate appeals that we consolidated.  
We affirmed.  __Ohio St.3d__, 2018-Ohio-3128, __N.E.3d__, ¶ 17. 
{¶ 4} Meanwhile, Keith attempted to reopen proceedings in Keith I, which 
had been dormant since October 2014.  On January 16, 2017, he filed three 
pleadings in the court of appeals: a motion for contempt, a motion for a show-cause 
order, and a motion for an order enforcing the mandate.  The court of appeals denied 
the contempt and show-cause motions on January 22, 2018, without mentioning the 
third motion. 
{¶ 5} Keith appealed. 
{¶ 6} The allegations made in Keith’s contempt and enforcement motions 
are the same as those made in the Keith II mandamus action: that substantively 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
inaccurate information remains in his parole record, prejudicing his parole 
applications.  We have rejected these claims.  Given our holding in Keith II that 
appellees have complied with our original order to purge Keith’s parole record of 
inaccurate material information, there is no basis for ordering them to take 
additional action, much less for a finding of contempt. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, 
and DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Bernard R. Keith, pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and George Horvath, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellees. 
_________________