State ex rel. Grayson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
2017 Ohio 753
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John Grayson, an Ohio inmate with multiple prior incarcerations, was convicted of drug trafficking and received an eight-month definite sentence in January 2010; ODRC calculates his sentence maximum as July 12, 2026.
- Grayson had four parole reviews after 2010 (Aug. 9, 2010; June 13, 2011; Nov. 2, 2012; Aug. 12, 2014) and was denied each time, with the board citing substantial risk of reoffending and extensive criminal history.
- Grayson seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) to conduct a parole hearing using the Ohio Parole Board Guidelines Manual (Third Ed., effective July 1, 2007), which the Board rescinded April 1, 2010.
- Grayson claims the Board’s post-2010 refusal to apply the 2007 guidelines violates the Ex Post Facto Clause because the 2007 manual would have given a suggested 0–9 month range for certain parole violator recommitments.
- The Board contends the 2007 guidelines were advisory only, never mandated release, and even under the 2007 manual the Board retained discretion to deny parole based on factors in O.A.C. 5120:1-1-07; after rescission the Board relied on those same statutory and regulatory factors.
- The magistrate and the Tenth District Court of Appeals denied Grayson’s mandamus request, concluding Grayson failed to show the rescission created a significant risk of increased incarceration in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rescinding the 2007 parole guidelines and deciding parole under post-2010 practice violated the Ex Post Facto Clause | Grayson: rescission removed an applicable 2007 guideline (0–9 months for certain definite-sentence PVRs) and thus retroactive nonapplication created a risk of greater time served | OAPA: 2007 guidelines were advisory; they never mandated release after 0–9 months and Board always had discretion to deny parole under O.A.C. 5120:1-1-07; rescission did not create a significant risk of longer incarceration | Denied: Grayson failed to show rescission created a sufficient risk of increased punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause |
| Whether the 2007 guidelines, on their face, mandated a shorter term for Grayson | Grayson: the SB2-equivalent 0–9 month guideline applied to his situation | OAPA: the manual expressly states ranges are suggestions and do not usurp Board discretion | Held for OAPA: the manual is advisory and does not mandate release |
| Whether practical implementation of the rescission produced a significantly greater risk of incarceration | Grayson: post-2010 continuances (1.5–2 years) evidence increased risk compared to 0–9 months | OAPA: Board minutes and affidavit show denials were based on statutory factors (risk to reoffend) that would have justified denials both before and after rescission | Held for OAPA: Grayson did not present evidence that practical implementation caused a sufficient risk of longer incarceration |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate relief to compel application of the 2007 manual | Grayson: requests writ to require hearings applying 2007 manual | OAPA: no entitlement because no Ex Post Facto violation shown; Board retains discretion | Held: Writ of mandamus denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (U.S. 2000) (retroactive parole/reconsideration rule challenges require showing a sufficient risk the change increases time actually served)
- Michael v. Ghee, 498 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2007) (applies Garner to Ohio parole guidelines; explains face-of-rule vs. implementation evidence framework)
- Fletcher v. Reilly, 433 F.3d 867 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (after Garner, courts focus on whether retroactive parole rule creates practical risk of prolonging incarceration)