THE STATE EX REL. BRAY, APPELLANT, v. RUSSELL, WARDEN, APPELLEE. HADDAD V. RUSSELL, WARDEN. WHITE, APPELLEE, v. KONTEH, WARDEN, APPELLANT.
Nos. 98-2694, 99-273 and 99-542
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
June 14, 2000
89 Ohio St.3d 132 | 2000-Ohio-119
[Cite as State ex rel. Bray v. Russell, 2000-Ohio-119.]
Criminal law—Bad time added to prison term for violation occurring during course of prisoner’s stated prison term—
(Nos. 98-2694, 99-273 and 99-542—Submitted November 30, 1999—Decided June 14, 2000.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA98-06-068.
IN HABEAS CORPUS.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No. 99-T-0020.
{¶ 1} In 1997, appellant Gary Bray was charged with and convicted of drug possession and sentenced to an eight-month prison term. While in prison, Bray allegedly assaulted a prison guard in violation of
{¶ 2} Bray’s original sentence of eight months for drug possession expired on June 5, 1998, at which time his additional ninety-day penalty began. On June 12, 1998, Bray filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Warren County, claiming that Warden Harry Russell was unlawfully restraining him. Bray completed his ninety-day bad-time penalty and the warden moved to dismiss the complaint as moot.
{¶ 4} In 1998, Richard Haddad was convicted of attempted aggravated assault and sentenced to a nine-month prison term. Haddad was scheduled for release on November 12, 1998. However, in October 1998, while in prison, Haddad allegedly committed an assault and was sentenced to an additional ninety days of incarceration pursuant to
{¶ 5} On February 3, 1999, Haddad filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court, alleging that Warden Harry Russell was unlawfully restraining him and clаiming that
{¶ 6} In 1997, appellee Samuel White was convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced to a sixteen-month prison term. White was scheduled for release on December 22, 1998. However, in June 1998, White allegedly committed an assault and was sentenced to an additional thirty days of incarceration pursuant to
{¶ 7} On February 5, 1999, White filed for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, claiming that Warden Khelleh Konteh was unlawfully restraining him. On March 23, 1999, the court of appeals held that
{¶ 8} The cause is now before this court pursuant to appeals as of right in case Nos. 98-2694 and 99-542, and upon the pleadings in case No. 99-273.
David H. Bodiker, State Public Defender, Jill E. Stone and Alison M. Clark, Assistant State Publiс Defenders, for appellant Bray, appellee White, and petitioner Haddad.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Edward B. Foley, pro hac vice, State Solicitor, Todd R. Marti and Michele M. Schoeppe, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant Konteh, and appellee and respondent Russell.
PFEIFER, J.
{¶ 9} This case involves a facial challenge to the constitutionality of
{¶ 10} This court has repeatedly affirmed that the doctrine of separation of powers is “implicitly embedded in the entire framework of those sections of the Ohio Constitution that define the substance and scope of powers granted to the three branches of state government.” S. Euclid v. Jemison (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 157, 158-159, 28 OBR 250, 251, 503 N.E.2d 136, 138; State v. Warner (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 31, 43-44, 564 N.E.2d 18, 31. See State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 475, 715 N.E.2d 1062, 1085; State v. Hochhausler (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 455, 463, 668 N.E.2d 457, 465-466.
{¶ 12} The state argues that the doctrine of separation of powers “applies only when there is some interference with anothеr governmental branch.” See State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 31, 38, 661 N.E.2d 187, 193. See, also, Krent, Separating the Strands in Separation of Powers Controversies (1988), 74 Va.L.Rev. 1253 (discussion of functionalist approach advocated by the state); Vine, Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers (2 Ed.1998) 402. We disagree. The language relied upon by the state’s argument was dictum and the underlying concept was not developed in Plain Dealer, prior to Plain Dealer, or subsequent to Plain Dealer.
{¶ 13} Further, the very purpose of the doctrine of separation of powers undercuts the argument. The people adopted the Ohio Constitution, not the legislative, exeсutive, or judicial branches of government. In Zanesville v. Zanesville Tel. & Tel. Co. (1900), 63 Ohio St. 442, 451, 59 N.E. 109, 110, this court stated: “The distribution of the powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, among three co-ordinate branches, separate and independent of each other, is a fundamental feature of our system of constitutional government. In the preservation of these distinctions is seen, by many able jurists, the preservation of all the rights, civil and political, of the individual, secured by our free form of government; and it is held that any encroachment by one upon the other is a step in the direction of arbitrary power.” Though the judgment in Zanesville was reversed (1901), 64 Ohio St. 67, 59 N.E. 781, we adhere to the principles espoused therein. The reason the legislative, executive, and judicial powers are separate and balanced is to protect the people, not to protect the various branches of government.
{¶ 14}
{¶ 16} In our constitutional scheme, the judicial power resides in thе judicial branch.
{¶ 17} Prison discipline is an exercise of executive power and nothing in this opinion should be interpreted to suggest otherwise. However, trying, convicting, and sentencing inmates for crimes committed while in prison is not an exercise of executive power. Accordingly, we hold that
{¶ 18} Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals in case No. 98-2694 is reversed, the judgment of the court of appeals in case No. 99-542 is affirmed, and the petitioner is discharged in case No. 99-273.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS and COOK, JJ., dissent.
COOK, J., dissenting.
{¶ 19} The majority decides that ”
{¶ 20} We know that enactments of the General Assembly are presumed to be constitutional. In order for this court to declare a statute unconstitutional, it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is incompatible with particular constitutional prоvisions. State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 409, 700 N.E.2d 570, 576. The majority opinion fails to acknowledge these axioms of judicial restraint that ought to anchor any analysis involving the separation-of-powers principle.
{¶ 21} The instant cases present a facial challenge to the constitutionality of
II. The United States Supreme Court Assesses Interference with Another Branch under the Separation-of-Powers Doctrine
{¶ 22} The interconnеcted roles of the executive and judicial branches under the “bad time” scheme would not offend the separation-of-powers doctrine if analyzed according to federal jurisprudence on the subject. The United States Supreme Court has “squarely rejected” the ” ‘archaic view of the separation of powers as requiring three airtight departments of government.’ ” Nixon v. Admr. of Gen. Serv. (1977), 433 U.S. 425, 443, 97 S.Ct. 2777, 2790, 53 L.Ed.2d 867, 891, citing United States v. Nixon (1974), 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039, and quoting Nixon v. Admr. of Gen. Serv. (D.D.C.1976), 408 F.Supp. 321, 342.
{¶ 23} In its place, the Supreme Court has adopted the more “pragmatic, flexible approach” advocated by James Madison in Federalist No. 47. 433 U.S. at 442, 97 S.Ct. at 2789, 53 L.Ed.2d at 890. Accordingly, the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Admr. did not merely consider the nature of the challenged legislative Act (i.e., was it “executive” or “judicial“) to determine whether Congress violated the separation of powers. Rather, the Supreme Court focused on the extent to which the legislative Act actually ”prevent[ed] the Exеcutive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 443, 97 S.Ct. at 2790, 53 L.Ed.2d at 891, citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 711-712, 94 S.Ct. at 3109, 41 L.Ed.2d at 1066.
{¶ 25} Until today, Ohio cases reflected the Nixon sort of analysis. In State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland, we determined that the separation-of-powers doctrine “applies only when there is some interference with another governmental branch.” (Emphasis added.) (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 31, 38, 661 N.E.2d 187, 193. The majority discounts as dictum Plain Dealer’s congruence with the United States Supreme Court. But this court reitеrated the link between unconstitutional interbranch interference and the separation of powers after Plain Dealer. In State v. Hochhausler, we held that a statute violated the separation of powers because the Act “improperly interfere[d]” with the exercise of a court’s functions by depriving courts of their ability to grant a stay. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 455, 464, 668 N.E.2d 457, 466. I would follow Plain Dealer and Hochhausler here, assessing whether the adjudicatory functions of the Parole Board under
{¶ 26} The majority rejects the interference requirement of Nixon v. Admr. and Plain Dealer, and focuses instead on the form of the prison disciplinary proceedings that occur under
{¶ 27} In VFW Post, for example, we determined that in order to find a violation of an administrative rule regarding gambling devices, the Liquor Commission must determine that the gambling devices in question were used to commit one of the gambling offenses listed in the criminal code. Id. at 81, 697 N.E.2d at 658. In the same case, we noted that while a criminal conviction must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a violation of the administrative rulе need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. That administrative discipline may result from “violations” defined with reference to the criminal code does not prevent an agency from engaging in its delegated adjudicatory function, even in the absence of a judicial determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Eastway (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 516, 525, 642 N.E.2d 1135, 1141 (holding that the acts of a physician that would constitute a felony under Ohio law could be considered by the State Medical Board in imposing discipline, even though the physician was not convicted of a felony as a result of those acts).
{¶ 29} “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution.” Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 951. Because I believe that the same can be said for the rule-infraction proceedings that occur under
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.