2022 Ohio 270
Ohio2022Background:
- David Shie was released in Aug. 2020 on five years of mandatory postrelease control with conditions forbidding unsupervised contact with minors, use of social-media sites frequented by minors, Internet contact with minors, and possession of pornography.
- In Feb.–Mar. 2021 he solicited an undercover officer posing as a 15-year-old, had social-media contacts with apparent minors, and possessed pornographic material; he was arrested and charged with four postrelease-control violations.
- Shie admitted several violations, waived procedural rights at the violation hearing, and a hearing officer found violations and imposed a prison sanction (270 days less 35 days’ jail credit = 235 days).
- Shie filed a mandamus petition (Apr. 12, 2021) seeking either immediate release (arguing the APA failed to charge him within ten business days per ODRC Policy 100-APA-14) or, alternatively, an order reducing the sanction or directing chief hearing-officer review under ODRC Policy 105-PBD-09.
- The court granted an alternative writ, received briefs/evidence, and ultimately denied Shie’s motions (including a motion for a peremptory writ and a damages claim) and denied the writ of mandamus.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus may be used to obtain immediate release based on APA’s alleged failure to comply with ODRC Policy 100-APA-14 timing requirements | Shie: APA didn’t charge/hold the violation hearing within ten business days per ODRC policy, so he must be released | APA: Mandamus is not the correct remedy for immediate release; habeas corpus is the proper vehicle | Denied — relief seeking immediate release is not cognizable in mandamus; habeas is appropriate for release claims |
| Whether an ODRC internal policy (105-PBD-09) creates a legal duty enforceable in mandamus (to reduce sanction or require chief hearing-officer review) | Shie: Policy limits the sanction for his most serious violation to 90 days and requires chief approval for sanctions over 180 days, so his sanction should be reduced or reviewed | APA: Internal agency policies do not create enforceable legal duties; statutory law authorizes sanctions up to nine months | Denied — internal policy does not create a mandamus-enforceable duty; statutory authorization makes the sanction lawful |
| Motion for a peremptory writ based on alleged untimely filing of respondent’s evidence | Shie: APA failed to file evidence within 20 days after the alternative writ, so a peremptory writ should issue | APA: It timely filed its evidence on July 20, within the 20-day period | Denied — factual premise false; APA filed timely evidence |
| Claim for monetary damages under R.C. 2731.11 following mandamus action | Shie: If mandamus granted, he may recover damages under R.C. 2731.11 | APA: If mandamus is denied, no statutory damages are recoverable | Denied — because mandamus was denied, no damages award under R.C. 2731.11 |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Marsh v. Tibbals, 149 Ohio St.3d 656 (sets mandamus elements)
- State ex rel. Clough v. Franklin Cty. Children Servs., 144 Ohio St.3d 83 (agency internal policy does not create mandamus-enforceable duty)
- State ex rel. Aaron’s, Inc. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 148 Ohio St.3d 34 (same principle regarding agency policy)
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd., 80 Ohio St.3d 140 (habeas corpus, not mandamus, is proper remedy for release)
- State ex rel. Natl. City Bank v. Maloney, 103 Ohio St.3d 93 (damages under R.C. 2731.11 require a mandamus judgment for the relator)