THE STATE EX REL. RICHARD; CALO ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MOHR, DIR., ET AL., APPELLEES.
No. 2012-1902
Supreme Court of Ohio
April 16, 2013
135 Ohio St.3d 373, 2013-Ohio-1471
Submitted April 11, 2013
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion of appellees, Gary C. Mohr, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Harry Hageman, chief of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority, and Cynthia Mausser, chair of the Ohio Parole Board, to dismiss the petition of appellants, Dennis Calo and Ronald Jolly, for a writ of mandamus. Calo and Jolly‘s claims are defective because they have no constitutional or statutory right to parole or to be considered for parole on a particular date. Therefore, they have no clear legal right to relief and can show no clear legal duty on the part of appellees.
{¶ 2} Calo and Jolly, as well as relator Donald Richard,1 filed an original action in mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss. The court of appeals dismissed, and Calo and Jolly filed this appeal.
{¶ 3} Calo and Jolly appear to be arguing that they should be eligible for parole hearings at intervals set by the version of
{¶ 4} To be entitled to the requested extraordinary relief, Calo and Jolly must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of appellees to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6. Calo and Jolly must prove that they are entitled to the writ by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶ 5} Ohio law gives a convicted inmate “no legitimate claim of entitlement to parole prior to the expiration of a valid sentence of imprisonment.” State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson, 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 490, 633 N.E.2d 1128 (1994). The statute granting the parole authority discretion to grant parole,
{¶ 6} In short, application of the new parole guidelines to Calo and Jolly does not constitute a violation of any constitutionally or statutorily protected liberty interest. They have failed to assert a clear legal right to the relief they seek or a clear legal duty on the part of appellees to provide relief. We therefore affirm the court of appeals’ dismissal of their case.
{¶ 7} Calo and Jolly also filed a motion to disqualify the attorney general from representing appellees here. They make vague accusations of collusion and impropriety, but have submitted no evidence whatsoever to back up these accusations. The motion is denied.
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O‘NEILL, JJ., concur.
Dennis Calo and Ronald Jolly, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and David A. Lockshaw Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.