State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Slip Opinion)
141 Ohio St. 3d 375
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Bernard R. Keith, an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence, received a parole denial after a February 17, 2012 video hearing; the board stated he had been paroled eight times and set the next hearing 62 months later.
- Keith protested that the parole decision relied on inaccurate records (including the number of prior paroles) and requested correction and a new hearing; the board corrected the parole-count error but declined to reopen the decision.
- Keith filed a mandamus action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals seeking an order requiring the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) to investigate and correct errors in his record and to grant a new parole hearing.
- The magistrate and the court of appeals found the correction of the parole-count made Keith’s claim moot and granted summary judgment for OAPA, but the court failed to address additional alleged record errors that had been pleaded.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that when an inmate makes credible, evidence-supported allegations that the records used in a parole decision are substantively inaccurate, OAPA must investigate and correct significant errors before deciding parole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OAPA has a legal duty to correct inaccurate parole records before deciding parole | Keith: OAPA must correct substantive inaccuracies and provide a rehearing when records used are false | OAPA: No constitutional or statutory right to parole; correction already made (parole count) so claim moot | Held: OAPA must investigate and correct substantive inaccuracies it knows or has reason to know are false before deciding parole |
| Whether correction of the parole-count alone rendered Keith’s mandamus claim moot | Keith: Additional asserted errors remained uncorrected; court should consider supplemental claims | OAPA: The corrected parole-count and board’s refusal to modify decision moots relief | Held: Not moot with respect to other pleaded, credible errors; court below erred by not addressing them |
| Whether prisoners have a due-process right to accurate records used in parole decisions | Keith: Due-process expectation exists because regulations require consideration of specific reports and relevant information | OAPA: No due-process right to parole or to correction of scoresheets under prior precedent | Held: No right to parole, but a minimal due-process expectation requires that information actually and accurately pertain to the inmate; credible allegations trigger investigatory/corrective duty |
| Standard for when OAPA must investigate alleged inaccuracies | Keith: Credible allegations supported by evidence require correction and a new hearing | OAPA: Should not be required to credit all prisoner allegations; wide discretion remains | Held: OAPA need not investigate every claim, but must investigate and correct significant errors when allegations are credible and supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus standard: clear right, duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 81 Ohio St.3d 267 (1998) (no constitutional or statutory right to parole)
- State ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt, 69 Ohio St.3d 123 (1994) (previously limited challenges to parole-related records on due-process grounds)
- Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 97 Ohio St.3d 456 (2002) (OAPA must adhere to statutory/regulatory requirements; inaccurate records may breach expectations created by parole scheme)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (states may create discretionary parole systems but define procedural expectations)