State ex rel. Stith v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 7824
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Harold Stith is serving a 22-years-to-life sentence; he had parole hearings in 2010 and 2013.
- At the 2010 hearing the parole board granted a 29-month continuance and noted Stith’s participation in the OASIS rehabilitative program but cited an alleged rules violation.
- At the 2013 hearing the board granted a 59-month continuance and did not mention his program participation.
- Stith filed a mandamus petition (Tenth Dist.) claiming the board failed to give meaningful consideration to rehabilitative activity, failed to award good-time or program credits, and improperly extended his continuance.
- The court of appeals dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim; Stith appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court which denied his late-filed reply brief and declined relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stith) | Defendant's Argument (DRC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 59-month continuance was unlawful or punitive | The longer continuance was punitive and unfair given positive rehabilitative conduct | Parole timing is discretionary within wide-ranging APA authority; 59 months is within regulations | Denied — APA discretion and regulatory limits permit the continuance |
| Whether the APA may consider the nature/seriousness of the crime at subsequent hearings | APA may only consider rehabilitative progress at subsequent hearings, not the crime’s nature | R.C. 2967.03 allows APA to consider any matters affecting fitness for release at any hearing | Denied — statute permits consideration of all relevant matters at subsequent hearings |
| Whether good-time and program-credit rules required the board to reduce continuance | Good-time and program-credit rules entitle Stith to credit affecting parole timing | Those rules reduce sentence eligibility, but cease to operate once minimum served and a parole hearing occurs; program-credit rules do not obligate board to grant parole | Denied — good-time/program-credit rules do not create a mandatory parole-release factor |
| Procedural: whether court of appeals failed to address claims / entitlement to further briefing | Court omitted a claim and Stith should be allowed to file late reply | Court properly considered the record and multiple briefs; Stith’s motion for late filing improperly seeks a second extension | Denied — no leave to file out-of-time and no colorable legal claim shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Rankin v. Adult Parole Auth., 98 Ohio St.3d 476 (2003) (mandamus elements and parole-review principles)
- State ex rel. Keith v. Adult Parole Auth., 141 Ohio St.3d 375 (2014) (APA has broad, wide-ranging discretion over parole matters)
- State ex rel. Vaughn v. Money, 104 Ohio St.3d 322 (2004) (good-time statutes affect parole eligibility but do not shorten a court-imposed sentence)