Court Opinion

ID: 9905361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 14:05:58.466497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:12.862630
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Stokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4201.]

                                           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. 2023-OHIO-4201
         THE STATE EX REL. STOKES, 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. Stokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion
                                   No. 2023-Ohio-4201.]
Mandamus—Court of appeals did not err in dismissing inmate’s mandamus action,
        because his minimum sentence was correctly calculated—Court of appeals’
        judgment affirmed.
      (No. 2023-0402—September 26, 2023—Decided November 29, 2023.)
               APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,
                             No. 21AP-482, 2023-Ohio-468.
                                   __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Patrick O. Stokes, appeals the judgment of the Tenth
District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. Stokes
was sentenced in 1996 to three life sentences and two sentences of 10 to 25 years,
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

all to be served consecutively. Appellees, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction and the Bureau of Sentence Computation (collectively, “DRC”),
calculated Stokes’s aggregate sentence to be 45 years to life. In 2021, Stokes filed
a mandamus action in the Tenth District, arguing that DRC improperly calculated
his minimum sentence by adding three 10-year minimum sentences associated with
his life sentences. Stokes sought mandamus relief to compel DRC to calculate his
minimum sentence to be 15 years. The Tenth District granted DRC’s motion to
dismiss, holding that DRC’s calculation of Stokes’s minimum sentence was correct.
We affirm.
                   FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       {¶ 2} In 1996, Stokes was convicted on three counts of rape, one count of
kidnapping, and one count of aggravated robbery. At the time, R.C. 2907.02(B)
mandated a life sentence when a rape victim was less than 13 years old. See Former
R.C. 2907.02(B), Sub.S.B. No. 31, 145 Ohio Laws, Part I, 342, 345. Stokes was
sentenced to life on each count of rape, with the sentences to be served
consecutively. Stokes was sentenced to 10 to 25 years for each of the kidnapping
and aggravated-robbery convictions, with those sentences to be served
consecutively to each other and to the three life sentences. DRC determined that
Stokes would become eligible for parole after serving 45 years—10 years for each
of the three rape convictions and 15 years for the other convictions.
       {¶ 3} In 2019, before filing his mandamus action in the Tenth District,
Stokes filed a declaratory-judgment action in the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas, which dismissed his petition for failure to state a claim. Stokes
appealed the common pleas court’s dismissal to the Eighth District Court of
Appeals, arguing, as he does here, that DRC’s calculation of his 45-year minimum
aggregate sentence was incorrect. Stokes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 109569, 2021-Ohio-316, ¶ 3. The Eighth District affirmed the trial
court’s dismissal and held that Stokes’s arguments were better suited for “ ‘post-

                                         2
                                January Term, 2023

conviction petitions, habeas corpus, and motions to vacate,’ ” id. at ¶ 7, quoting
Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427, 2014-Ohio-1052, 7 N.E.3d 1188, ¶ 44, rather
than a declaratory judgment, id. at ¶ 7-8.
       {¶ 4} In 2021, Stokes filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth
District, requesting that the court of appeals compel DRC to “correctly” compute
the length of his minimum sentence. Asserting that he is an “old law” inmate,
which he defined in his petition as an incarcerated person who was “sentenced for
crimes committed prior to July 1, 1996,” Stokes claimed that DRC miscalculated
his minimum sentence. Stokes alleged that he has a right to an accurately calculated
minimum sentence and DRC has a duty to impose a correct minimum sentence.
Citing R.C. 2907.02(B), Stokes argued that because the only available sentence for
the rape offenses was life in prison, he is not subject to a minimum sentence for
those convictions. Stokes claimed that DRC had “modified” his sentences by
adding three 10-year minimum sentences for each of his rape convictions, which
incorrectly increased his minimum sentence by 30 years.
       {¶ 5} DRC moved to dismiss Stokes’s petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6),
asserting that they had accurately calculated Stokes’s multiple sentences. Citing
Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-10(H)(1), DRC argued that an inmate convicted of rape
committed against a victim under the age of thirteen prior to July 1, 1996,
“[b]ecomes eligible for parole consideration after serving ten full years.”
       {¶ 6} The Tenth District dismissed Stokes’s petition, holding that DRC had
not “modified” Stokes’s sentence, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 21AP-482, 2023-Ohio-
468, ¶ 20, and finding that the absence of a minimum term in his rape sentences
meant that they were not indefinite sentences and therefore fell outside the
sentencing caps of R.C. 2929.41, id. at ¶ 13-16, citing Pollock v. Ohio Adult Parole
Auth., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-839, 2002-Ohio-1319, and McMeans v. State
Adult Parole Auth., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 98AP-42, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 5331
(Oct. 27, 1998).

                                             3
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

                                    ANALYSIS
       {¶ 7} The Tenth District’s judgment dismissing Stokes’s petition was
correct. DRC accurately calculated his parole-eligibility date and correctly applied
the sentencing statutes and Administrative Code provisions that were in effect at
the time of his conviction.
       {¶ 8} To dismiss a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it must appear beyond
doubt from the petition that the relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief,
after all factual allegations are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are
made in his favor. State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn., Ohio Conference v. Ohio
Bur. of Emp. Servs., 83 Ohio St.3d 179, 181, 699 N.E.2d 64 (1998). This court
reviews de novo the court of appeals’ dismissal of Stokes’s petition. State ex rel.
Brown v. Nusbaum, 152 Ohio St.3d 284, 2017-Ohio-9141, 95 N.E.3d 365, ¶ 10.
       {¶ 9} To state a claim for a writ of mandamus, a relator must allege facts
showing (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the
part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 378,
2017-Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3.
       {¶ 10} The Tenth District’s decision is consistent with prior decisions
concerning the differentiation between indefinite sentences and life sentences and
how that distinction affects an inmate’s parole eligibility. Stokes was convicted in
October 1996, for crimes committed in April 1996. See State v. Stokes, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 71654, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 5530, at *1 (Dec. 11, 1997). Stokes
therefore was subject to the criminal laws and sentences that existed prior to July
1, 1996.    See R.C. 2967.021(A).        At the time of Stokes’s offenses, R.C.
2929.41(E)(2) stated, “Consecutive terms of imprisonment imposed shall not
exceed: * * * (2) An aggregate minimum term of fifteen years * * * when the
consecutive terms imposed are for felonies other than aggravated murder or
murder.” Former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2), Am.Sub.H.B. No. 571, 145 Ohio Laws, Part

                                          4
                                January Term, 2023

IV, 6341, 6397. Similarly, at that time, R.C. 2967.13(F) read, “A prisoner serving
a sentence of imprisonment for life for * * * rape or felonious sexual penetration *
* * becomes eligible for parole after serving a term of ten full years’ imprisonment.”
Former R.C. 2967.13(F), Am.Sub.H.B. No. 571, 145 Ohio Laws, Part IV, at 6430.
       {¶ 11} Courts have held that a life sentence under R.C. 2907.03 is a definite
sentence, regardless of the inmate’s potential for parole under R.C. 2967.13(F). See
McMeans, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 98AP-42, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 5331, at *8-
9 (“the absence of a stated minimum term in the present matter takes the sentence
outside the ambit of R.C. 2929.41(E). * * * [The ten-year minimum of R.C.
2967.13(F)] is determined directly under the statutory provisions governing parole,
rather than under the general sentencing statutes of R.C. 2929.01 et seq.”); see also
McCleskey v. Adult Parole Auth., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19037, 2002-Ohio-
2699, ¶ 10 (“[t]his specific language [of R.C. 2907.02(B)] is to be construed as an
exception to the general language of R.C. 2929.41(E). * * * [McClesky] is not
entitled under R.C. 2929.41(E) to be eligible for parole after serving fifteen years
of his sentence”).
       {¶ 12} These decisions are consistent with this court’s holding in Yonkings
v. Wilkinson, 86 Ohio St.3d 225, 714 N.E.2d 394 (1999), that R.C. 2929.41(E)(2)
applies only to indefinite sentences.         “Nowhere throughout this statutory
framework is a definite term referred to in such terminology. When former R.C.
2929.41(E)(2) is read in pari materia with [other sentencing statutes], it becomes
obvious that the cap on aggregate minimum terms was meant to apply only to
indefinite sentences.” Yonkings at 228. In its analysis, this court also noted that
“[a] ‘definite’ sentence is just what its name implies: a specific number of years of
imprisonment rather than a range defined by minimum and maximum terms.
Referring to a minimum or maximum term of imprisonment makes sense only when
speaking of an indefinite sentence.” Id. at 227. See also State v. Bowers, 163 Ohio

                                          5
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

St.3d 28, 2020-Ohio-5167, 167 N.E.3d 947, ¶ 3 (referring to a life-without-parole
sentence under R.C. 2907.02(B) as a “definite sentence”).
       {¶ 13} Along the same lines, the courts in McMeans and McCleskey found
no issues with calculating parole eligibility by taking the number of consecutive
life sentences an inmate is serving for rape and multiplying that number by ten
years, in accordance with R.C. 2967.13(F). McMeans at *6 (“the ten year minimum
under R.C. 2967.13(F) would be aggregated, given [McMeans’s] sentence of three
consecutive life terms, to arrive at a thirty year minimum imprisonment before
eligibility for parole * * *”); McCleskey at ¶ 15 (“McCleskey will have to serve ten
years on each of his six consecutive life sentences, or sixty years, in addition to the
minimum requirements on his other sentences, before he will be eligible for parole
consideration”); see also Schrock v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 05AP-82, 2005-Ohio-3938, ¶ 11 (finding that Schrock would be parole eligible
after serving 220 years for 22 rape convictions, in addition to serving other definite
and indefinite sentences).
       {¶ 14} Because the Tenth District’s decision that DRC correctly calculated
Stokes’s parole eligibility under R.C. 2967.13(F) is in line with this court’s holding
on definite versus indefinite sentences, dismissal of Stokes’s petition was
warranted.
                                  CONCLUSION
       {¶ 15} We affirm the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Stoke’s
mandamus petition.
                                                                  Judgment affirmed.
       KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                                _________________
       Patrick O. Stokes, pro se.
       Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horváth, Assistant Attorney

                                          6
                          January Term, 2023

General, for appellees.
                          _________________

                                  7