Sate ex rel. Guthrie v. Fender
2021 Ohio 2182
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Petitioner Russell Guthrie was sentenced in 1993 for sexual offenses and was paroled in August 2019.
- In June 2020 Guthrie was arrested as a technical parole violator based on private text-message communications (one about retrieving a bag/gun; another sexual text exchange with a consenting adult).
- Guthrie’s parole was revoked in July 2020 with an initial 24-month sanction that was later increased administratively to a five-year sanction.
- Guthrie filed pro se petitions in the Eleventh District seeking declaratory judgment, a writ of habeas corpus (immediate release), and a writ of mandamus (order to comply with Morrissey due-process requirements), alleging due-process defects, free-speech and LGBT-bias claims, and lack of probable cause.
- Respondents moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the court reviewed applicable parole-revocation due-process standards and the appropriate remedies (new hearing via mandamus vs. immediate release via habeas).
- The court dismissed the declaratory-judgment and habeas petitions, dismissed the mandamus claim as to Warden Fender, and transferred Guthrie’s mandamus claim against Ohio Parole Board Chair Handwerk to the Tenth Appellate District (Franklin County) for proper venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court’s jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief in appellate court | Guthrie sought a declaratory judgment that his imprisonment is unlawful | Respondents argued appellate court lacks original jurisdiction for declaratory judgments | Dismissed: appellate court lacks original jurisdiction to grant declaratory judgment |
| Habeas corpus — extraordinary circumstances for immediate release | Guthrie argued parole revocation violated due process, free-speech, LGBT-bias, no probable cause; sought immediate release | Respondents argued habeas only lies in extraordinary cases and petitioner failed to plead particulars or attach commitment papers | Dismissed: petitioner failed to plead extraordinary circumstances or attach required commitment documents; remedy is a new hearing, not immediate release |
| Mandamus as the proper remedy and scope of relief | Guthrie sought mandamus ordering compliance with Morrissey and effectively a new revocation hearing | Respondents argued mandamus is for a clear legal duty (new hearing) and venue was improper in Ashtabula County | Mandamus cognizable to seek a new hearing; construed liberally for pro se petitioner but venue is Franklin County; mandamus transferred there |
| Proper defendants for mandamus | Guthrie sued Warden Fender and Parole Board Chair Handwerk | Respondents argued Warden has no duty to conduct parole hearings; only the Parole Authority can provide the requested relief | Mandamus dismissed as to Warden Fender; claim remains (and is transferred) as to Chair Handwerk |
Key Cases Cited
- Scarberry v. Turner, 139 Ohio St.3d 111 (Ohio 2014) (remedy for Morrissey due-process violations is a new revocation hearing, not immediate release)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (sets minimum due-process protections for parole revocation)
- State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 1995) (habeas corpus lies only in certain extraordinary parole-revocation cases; pleading particularity required)
- State ex rel. Womack v. Sloan, 152 Ohio St.3d 32 (Ohio 2017) (parole-revocation due-process claims typically do not establish extraordinary circumstances for habeas relief)
- Wright v. Ghee, 74 Ohio St.3d 465 (Ohio 1996) (no ordinary appeal from parole revocation; habeas available only in limited circumstances)
- Dailey v. Wainwright, 156 Ohio St.3d 510 (Ohio 2019) (failure to attach commitment papers to habeas petition is fatal)
- Brown v. Rogers, 72 Ohio St.3d 339 (Ohio 1995) (original sentencing entry is irrelevant to habeas review of parole revocation)
- State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 82 Ohio St.3d 270 (Ohio 1998) (due-process and ex post facto claims tied to parole revocation are not ordinarily cognizable in habeas)
- Sullivan v. Bunting, 133 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2012) (mandamus is appropriate remedy to obtain a new parole-revocation hearing)