[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Clark v. Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8391.]

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 De cisions, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2017-O HIO -8391
C LARK , A PPELLANT , v. A DULT P AROLE A UTHORITY , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Clark v. Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8391.] Mandamus—Parole—Appellant failed to s how double-jeopardy, due-process, or equal-protection violations—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition for writ affirmed. (No. 2016-1036—Submitted May 16, 2017—Decided November 2, 2017.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Belmont County, No. 16 BE 0005, 2016-Ohio-3383.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the Se venth District Court of Appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Leodius Clark, for a writ of mandamus. {¶ 2} Clark was indicted on multiple felonies, including aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and involuntary mans laughter, in Mahoning County case No.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 95 CR 589. He was convicted and sentenced to an indefinite term of 8 to 25 years in prison. On February 15, 2011, Clark was paroled and released. {¶ 3} In August 2011, he was arrested on new charges involving drug trafficking and receiving stolen property, in Mahoning County case No. 11 CR 1078. His parole officer found him in viol ation of his parole and imposed the following sanctions, effective Septem ber 29, 2011: 90 days of electronic monitoring, residence at an address approv ed by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA”), reporting to his parole officer as ordered, and compliance with all court orders on the new charges. On Septem ber 28, he was granted bond in order to complete the sanctions. On March 22, 2013, Clark was sentenced to a definite prison term of three years on the new charges. {¶ 4} On December 22, 2015, the APA held a hearing regarding case No.
95 CR 589. The APA determined that Cl ark was not suitable for release and
assessed a 36-month continuan ce. Clark requested rec onsideration, which the APA
denied. {¶ 5} On March 4, 2016, Clark filed an or iginal action in the Seventh District Court of Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus against the APA. He argued that his parole officer had already impos ed punishment for the parole violation when he subjected Clark to 90 days of el ectronic monitoring and that the parole board’s decision to keep him in prison for another 36 months for the same violation therefore violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. He also asserted due-process and equal-protection violations and asked the court of appeals to order the APA to reinstate his parole. {¶ 6} On June 13, 2016, the court of app eals dismissed Clark’s action, holding that he had not received multiple punishments and that he had failed to demonstrate any constitutional injury. 2016-Ohio-3383, ¶ 8, 12. {¶ 7} Clark timely appealed and filed a brief on the merits. The state filed its brief, and Clark filed a re ply brief. Clark filed a motion for leave to supplementJanuary Term, 2017

3 his reply brief on March 27, 2017, and the state filed a memorandum opposing the
motion. {¶ 8} Clark filed his motion for leave for two stated purposes. First, he wishes to present additional argument, supported by additional evidence. But S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.08 prohibits supplementati on of merit briefs except in rare circumstances that Clark has not alleged exis t in this case. Second, he wishes to
discuss Johnson v. Smith , 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-09-04, 2009-Ohio-1914, which his merit and reply brief do not a ddress. Supplemental author ity, as contemplated by S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.08, is relevant authority “i ssued after the deadline has passed for filing a party’s merit brief.” Johnson , issued in April 2009, does not qualify. {¶ 9} We therefore deny Clark’s motion for leave to supplement his reply
brief. {¶ 10} Proceeding to the merits of the appeal, we note that Clark is now challenging the jurisdiction of the Seventh District to hear the mandamus complaint he himself filed there. He argues that in suits against the APA, venue is proper only in Franklin County, citing State ex rel. Bobbitt v. Adult Parole Auth. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91341, 2008-Ohio-3046. He contends that the Seventh District should have transferred the case to Franklin County, as occurred in Bobbitt

. {¶ 11} Venue, unlike jurisdiction, is an affirmative defense, which a defendant may waive. Civ.R. 3(C)(1) a nd 12(H)(1). The APA did not raise the
defense in this case. And Clark has cited no authority for the proposition that the party who chooses the forum can later a ssert improper venue after receiving an adverse ruling on the merits. {¶ 12} Clark also asserts that the AP A’s imposition of an additional 36
months’ incarceration after he was alread y subjected to 90 days of electronic monitoring amounted to a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United
States and Ohio Constitutions. He mainta ins that he received two punishments for a single offense—his parole violation.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 13} The protection provided by the Ohio Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause is coextensive with that provide d by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the
United States Constitution. State v. Gustafson , 76 Ohio St.3d 425, 432, 668 N.E.2d 435 (1999). The state is prohibited from putting a person “ ‘twice * * * in jeopardy
for the same offense.’ ” Id ., quoting Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10. But the Double Jeopardy Clauses prohibit only multiple criminal punishments for a single offense. Hudson v. United States , 522 U.S. 93, 99, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997), citing Helvering v. Mitchell , 303 U.S. 391, 399, 58 S.Ct. 630, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938); State v. Martello , 97 Ohio St.3d 398, 2002-Ohio-6661, 780 N.E.2d 250, ¶ 8. In Martello , we considered the double-jeopardy implications of incarceration following a violation of postrelease-control conditions. We concluded that “jeopardy does not attach when a defendant receives a term of
incarceration for the violation of conditions of postrelease control. Such a term of incarceration is attributable to the original sentence and is not a ‘criminal punishment’ for Double Jeopardy Clause purposes * * *.” Id. at ¶ 26; see also Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). Likewise, the sanctions imposed for Clark’s parole violation were not criminal punishments. The Double Jeopardy Clause s were not violated by the sanctions imposed for his parole violation. {¶ 14} Next, Clark argues that once hi s parole officer had imposed sanctions against him, the APA no longer had jurisdiction to hold a parole hearing and it therefore violated his due-process righ ts by doing so. He bases this claim on Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-18(B), which provides, in relevantpart, that if a paroleboard member or hearing officer decides to order an offender reincarcerated for a parole violation, that decisi on “shall constitute the offici al and final determination of the adult parole authority to revoke re lease, unless the decision is reversed by the chief of the adult parole authority.” But by its terms, Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-January Term, 2017

5 1-18(B) applies only if the parole officer orders reincarceration, which did not happen in this case. {¶ 15} Finally, Clark alleges an equal-pr otection violation under the theory that he constitutes a “class of one.” An equal-protection claim may be brought on behalf of a class of one when “the plain tiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis
for the difference in treatment.” Willowbrook v. Olech , 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000). Clark’ s mandamus petition alleges neither of these mandatory elements. {¶ 16} Accordingly, we deny Clark’s motion for leave to supplement his reply brief and affirm the judgme nt of the court of appeals.
Motion denied and judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , O’N EILL , F ISCHER , and D E W INE , JJ., concur.

_________________ Leodius Clark, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jocelyn K. Lowe and Kelly N. Brogan, Assistant Attorney s General, for appellee.

_________________