State ex rel. Adkins v. Capots
| Decision Date | 15 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-712,89-712 |
| Citation | 546 N.E.2d 412,46 Ohio St.3d 187 |
| Parties | The STATE, ex rel. ADKINS, Appellant, v. CAPOTS, Chairman, Adult Parole Authority, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Appellant, James Adkins, an inmate at the Chillicothe Correctional Institute, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Appellant contended that he was convicted of a felony and received an indeterminate sentence of two to ten years; that he was paroled in 1981 and reincarcerated for a parole violation in 1984; and that he had been considered for parole on subsequent occasions, most recently in November 1987, when the Adult Parole Authority "applied the new ohio [sic ] parole guidelines * * *, and pursuant to such guidelines, relator's case was continued for eighteen months." Appellant contended that the guidelines violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, and that the guidelines' use by the authority was therefore an abuse of discretion. He requested the court to compel the authority to grant him a new parole hearing under constitutional guidelines.
Appellee, Chairman of the Adult Parole Authority, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), alleging that appellant could show neither clear legal right to relief sought nor a clear legal duty of appellee to grant him that relief. The court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss, upholding the decision of its referee who concluded that appellant could prove no set of facts entitling him to relief in mandamus.
The cause is before the court upon an appeal as a matter of right.
James Adkins, pro se.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Allen P. Adler, Columbus, for appellee.
We agree with the court of appeals that appellant can establish no clear right to relief requested nor any clear duty of appellee to provide that relief. Since the issue was considered on a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), we necessarily construe the facts in appellant's complaint as true. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 192, 532 N.E.2d 753, 756. Therefore, appellee concedes using the guidelines to review appellant's case, but does not concede that the guidelines are unconstitutional or an abuse of discretion, since legal conclusions are not admitted by a motion to dismiss. Id. at 193, 532 N.E.2d at 756.
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael v. Ghee
...determinations. In 1987, the parole board adopted guidelines to assist it in exercising its discretion. See State v. Capots, 46 Ohio St.3d 187, 546 N.E.2d 412 (1989). Eleven years later, in 1998, the OAPA adopted the guidelines at issue here, replacing the 1987 guidelines. The purported cla......
-
Driggins v. Bowen
...procedural due process." Id., citing Hattie v. Anderson, 68 Ohio St.3d 232, 233, 626 N.E.2d 67 (1994); State ex rel. Adkins v. Capots, 46 Ohio St.3d 187, 188, 546 N.E.2d 412 (1989). It follows that an inmate has no constitutional or statutory right to parole, no concomitant right to a parti......
-
White v. Richards
...of parole or a constitutional liberty interest sufficient to establish a right to procedural due process. State, ex rel Adkins, v. Capots, 46 Ohio St. 3d 187, 188 (1989); State, ex rel Blake, v Shoemaker, 4 Ohio St. 3d 42 (1983).Ground Two: Denial of Speedy Revocation Hearing The analysis w......
-
Hattie v. Anderson
...parole or a constitutional liberty interest sufficient to establish a right of procedural due process. State ex rel. Adkins v. Capots (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 187, 188, 546 N.E.2d 412, 413; State ex rel. Blake v. Shoemaker (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 42, 4 OBR 86, 446 N.E.2d 169, citing Greenholtz v.......