Brooks v. Kelly
144 Ohio St. 3d 322
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Petitioner Dwayne Brooks is serving a sentence of 20 years to life for aggravated murder, with additional concurrent terms consecutive to the life sentence.
- Brooks alleges his minimum term expired in 2005; the parole board held a 2005 hearing, denied parole, then later vacated that 2005 decision on the basis that he had not yet served his minimum term, and reset parole eligibility to 2015.
- Brooks filed a habeas corpus petition in the Ninth District Court of Appeals in 2014 challenging the board’s vacatur as a due-process violation.
- Warden Bennie Kelly moved to dismiss and/or for summary judgment; Brooks sought to strike the pleading arguing Civil Rules do not apply to habeas actions.
- The court of appeals denied the motion to strike and granted summary judgment for the warden on res judicata grounds; Brooks appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding the Civil Rules apply to habeas actions and that Brooks’s claims were barred by prior final dismissal(s); additionally, Brooks would not be entitled to habeas relief because he is not entitled to immediate release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Civil Rules to habeas corpus | Brooks: Civ.R. 56(C) and other Civil Rules do not apply to habeas corpus; court should proceed under R.C. Chapter 2725 | Kelly: Civil Rules are generally applicable to original actions for extraordinary writs, including habeas | Civil Rules apply; court did not err in deciding the motion under Civ.R. 56(C) |
| Res judicata bar to this habeas petition | Brooks: Merits of parole-board vacatur should be adjudicated; prior actions do not preclude this claim | Kelly: Brooks previously raised identical claims and a prior final dismissal bars relitigation | Petition is barred by res judicata; prior final dismissal precludes this action |
| Entitlement to habeas relief absent immediate release | Brooks: Vacatur of 2005 determination violated due process and affected parole eligibility | Kelly: Habeas relief requires entitlement to immediate release or physical liberty; vacatur does not entitle Brooks to immediate release while serving life | Even on the merits, Brooks is not entitled to habeas relief because he has not served his maximum sentence and cannot obtain immediate release |
| Proper remedy for alleged parole-board error | Brooks: Habeas is an appropriate vehicle to correct parole-board error | Kelly: Relief on alleged parole calculation error does not mandate habeas unless immediate release follows | Habeas inappropriate when petitioner cannot obtain immediate release; claim fails as basis for habeas |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Sautter v. Grey, 117 Ohio St.3d 465 (2008) (Civil Rules generally apply to writ actions)
- State ex rel. Ahmed v. Costine, 99 Ohio St.3d 212 (2003) (application of Civil Rules in extraordinary-writ context)
- Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 74 Ohio St.3d 149 (1995) (habeas corpus procedural principles)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (explaining res judicata: claim and issue preclusion)
- Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60 (1990) (final judgment bars claims that were or might have been litigated)
- Scanlon v. Brunsman, 112 Ohio St.3d 151 (2006) (habeas proper only when petitioner is entitled to immediate release)
- Crase v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 212 (2006) (habeas relief standards in criminal context)
- State ex rel. Abercrombie v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 141 Ohio St.3d 64 (2014) (habeas not available to prisoner who has not served maximum sentence)
- State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene, 84 Ohio St.3d 165 (1998) (limitations on habeas corpus relief)