State ex rel. McDermott v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
2017 Ohio 754
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John P. McDermott, serving 15 years-to-life for a 1980 murder, sought a writ of mandamus alleging the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) repeatedly relied on inaccurate information (e.g., alleged protective order, stalking history, and a "seizure" defense characterization) when denying parole.
- McDermott attached certified documents from several parole proceedings (2000, 2009, 2012, 2015) and materials from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) reporting to the General Assembly.
- He filed a motion for production of documents (seeking proof there was no protective order) after the magistrate’s submission deadline; the magistrate denied that motion.
- The magistrate concluded McDermott failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that OAPA relied on inaccurate information that affected the 2015 parole denial, and recommended denial of the writ.
- The court reviewed six objections, found only clerical errors in the magistrate’s factual paragraph timing and a typo, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and denied the writ of mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did OAPA rely on inaccurate information when denying parole? | McDermott: board used false facts (protective order, stalking, mischaracterized remorse) to deny parole. | OAPA: 2015 decision documents do not reference a protective order or stalking as basis; records OAPA relied on are not shown to be inaccurate. | Held: McDermott failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that OAPA relied on inaccurate information affecting the 2015 denial. |
| Was the magistrate’s denial of McDermott’s document-production motion erroneous and prejudicial? | McDermott: denial prevented him from proving inaccuracies (he filed after deadline but sought documents showing no protective order). | OAPA & magistrate: motion untimely after briefing schedule; McDermott did not seek to set aside magistrate’s orders or request timely extension. | Held: Denial not erroneous; even if produced, documents would not entitle McDermott to the writ under governing law. |
| Does allegedly inaccurate information in ODRC’s report to the General Assembly entitle McDermott to relief? | McDermott: ODRC falsely reported he violated a protection order in the murder, showing OAPA relied on falsehoods. | OAPA: McDermott’s petition seeks relief against OAPA for parole rehearing, not correction of ODRC’s report; no showing that OAPA’s 2015 denial turned on that report. | Held: Inaccurate language in ODRC report (if any) does not by itself establish entitlement to a new parole hearing. |
| Were magistrate’s factual errors material? | McDermott: magistrate misstated filing dates and when OAPA reconsidered past hearings. | Court: minor clerical errors (date and one "2009" vs "2000" reference) were inconsequential to analysis. | Held: Errors were clerical and immaterial; magistrate’s decision otherwise adopted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 141 Ohio St.3d 375 (2014) (OAPA may not rely on information it knows or has reason to know is inaccurate; credible, evidenced claims of substantive record errors obligate OAPA to investigate/correct)
- Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 97 Ohio St.3d 456 (2002) (parole system creates an expectation of meaningful consideration; OAPA’s procedures must have substantive effect)
- State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 81 Ohio St.3d 267 (1998) (no constitutional or statutory right to parole; parole decisions are discretionary)