[Cite as Richards v. State, 2018-Ohio-924.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

RONALD RICHARDS 

 Petitioner 

-vsSTATE OF OHIO 

 Respondent 

JUDGES: 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

Case No. 17 CA 26 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 9, 2018 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner For Respondent 

RONALD RICHARDS, D.C. #077622 JASON R. FARLEY 

Charlotte Correctional Institution Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

33123 Oil Well Road 627 Wheeling Ave. 

Punta Gorda, FL 33955 Cambridge, Ohio 43725 
Guernsey County, Case No. 17 CA 26 2

Hoffman, P.J. 

{¶1} Petitioner, Ronald Richards, has filed a complaint for writ of mandamus or 

writ of prohibition requesting Respondent be ordered to remove a detainer filed against 

Petitioner. 

FACTS 

{¶2} Petitioner was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in 1975, in Ohio. He 

was placed on parole in 1979. According to the Florida Department of Corrections 

website, Petitioner was convicted of sexual battery with a weapon or force and attempted 

murder in 1981. He is serving a 100 year sentence in Florida. Following his Florida 

conviction, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority issued a detainer based upon Petitioner’s 

alleged parole violation. Petitioner claims he is unable to participate in Florida prison 

programs and is ineligible for parole in Florida so long as the detainer is in place. 

PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS 

{¶3} Revised Code Section 2731.04 provides an application for a writ of 

mandamus “must be * * * in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying.” 

{¶4} “Thus, a petition for a writ of mandamus may be dismissed for failure to 

bring the action in the name of the state. Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 567, 

2004-Ohio-5596, 817 N.E.2d 382, ¶ 34. Accord Maloney v. Sacks, 173 Ohio St. 237, 238, 

181 N.E.2d 268 (1962).” Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 374, 2015-Ohio-2068, 43 N.E.3d 

432, ¶ 10. 

{¶5} Here Petitioner has not brought the petition in the name of the state. For 

this reason, the petition is subject to dismissal. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 17 CA 26 3

{¶6} Additionally, Petitioner has named only the State of Ohio as the Respondent 

and has not named the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction as a respondent. It 

is the department that has the authority to place a detainer pursuant to Ohio 

Administrative Code Section 5120:1-1-31. 

 Ohio Administrative Code Section 5120:1-1-31 titled Detainers 

provides, 

 (A) The department of rehabilitation and correction shall have the 

authority to file a detainer against an offender or otherwise cause the arrest 

of an offender by the issuance of a detainer whenever there is reasonable 

cause to believe that such offender has violated or is about to violate any of 

the terms or conditions of his supervision or sanction and commits an overt 

act toward such violation. 

{¶7} Even if Petitioner had followed the proper procedures in bringing this 

petition, his claims are without merit. Petitioner appears to argue the “statute of 

limitations” has expired for pursuing a parole violation. Petitioner cites no caselaw or 

statutory authority for the proposition there is a statute of limitations for pursuing a parole 

violation once a detainer has issued. 
Guernsey County, Case No. 17 CA 26 4

{¶8} For these reasons, we find Petitioner’s petition is procedurally defective and 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The petition is dismissed. 

By: Hoffman, P.J. 

Delaney, J. and 

Wise, Earle, J. concur