State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

95 Ohio St.3d 463

.]




       THE STATE EX REL. JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE
                                AUTHORITY, APPELLEE.
  [Cite as State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2002-Ohio 2481.]
Mandamus sought to compel Ohio Adult Parole Authority to hold a decision-
        review panel hearing on its March 1997 decision to deny relator parole—
        Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed.
       (No. 2001-2059—Submitted April 9, 2002—Decided June 12, 2002.)
      APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, No. 00CA2743.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶1} In 1989, appellant, Gregory D. Johnson, was convicted of felonious
assault and sentenced to a prison term of four to fifteen years. A year after being
paroled, Johnson was arrested and charged with domestic violence. On January 8,
1997, appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA”), held a parole-revocation
hearing, following which it concluded that Johnson had committed the charged
parole violation. The APA revoked his parole.
        {¶2} In March 1997, the Ohio Parole Board held a release-consideration
hearing and recommended that Johnson remain in prison until the maximum
expiration of his sentence in February 2003. A decision-review panel agreed with
the recommendation.
        {¶3} In October 2000, Johnson filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals
for Scioto County for a writ of mandamus to compel the APA to, among other
things, hold a decision-review panel hearing on the March 1997 decision to deny
Johnson parole. Johnson’s complaint contained unnotarized statements written by
Johnson concerning other civil actions and appeals that he has filed against
government entities or employees. The court of appeals converted the APA’s
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and notified the parties that
it was construing Johnson’s complaint as claiming that the March 1997 hearing
decision was not reviewed by the decision-review panel and that Johnson was not
informed of any decision that it might have made. After the APA introduced
evidence that the decision had been reviewed by the decision-review panel, Johnson
filed a motion in which he admitted “that the purpose and intent of the [request for
a] writ by petitioner has been served and satisfied, because I’ve finally received
finality of the revocation matters, and closure.” On October 5, 2001, the court of
appeals granted the APA’s motion for summary judgment and denied the writ.
        {¶4} In his appeal of right, Johnson asserts that the court of appeals erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of the APA. For the following reasons,
Johnson’s assertion lacks merit, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
        {¶5} Johnson failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) in
commencing this action. State ex rel. Akbar-El v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common
Pleas (2002), 

94 Ohio St.3d 210

, 

761 N.E.2d 624

.               Johnson’s unnotarized
statements attached to his complaint concerning his previous civil actions and
appeals against government entities or employees did not meet the affidavit
requirement of R.C. 2969.25(A). See State ex rel. Ditmars v. McSweeney (2002),

94 Ohio St.3d 472, 475

, 

764 N.E.2d 971

, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (7th
Ed.1999) 58 (“Applying the ordinary and common meaning of the word here, an
‘affidavit’ is a ‘voluntary declaration of facts written down and sworn to by the
declarant before an officer authorized to administer oaths’ ”); see, also, State ex rel.
Bowman v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 

77 Ohio St.3d 398, 400

, 

674 N.E.2d 694

 (“Undefined words used in a statute must be accorded their usual,
normal, or customary meaning”).
        {¶6} Furthermore, as the court of appeals concluded, a writ of mandamus
will not issue to compel an act that has already been performed. State ex rel.
Swingle v. Zaleski (2001), 

91 Ohio St.3d 82, 83

, 

742 N.E.2d 130

. Johnson




                                           2
                                January Term, 2002




conceded in the court of appeals that the purpose of his mandamus action had been
satisfied. By so admitting, Johnson, in effect, invited the court’s denial of his
request for a writ of mandamus. See State ex rel. Mason v. Griffin (2000), 

90 Ohio St.3d 299, 303

, 

737 N.E.2d 958

, quoting State ex rel. Beaver v. Konteh (1998), 

83 Ohio St.3d 519, 521

, 

700 N.E.2d 1256

 (“ ‘Under the invited-error doctrine, a party
will not be permitted to take advantage of an error that he himself invited or induced
the trial court to make’ ”).
        {¶7} Based on the foregoing, Johnson was not entitled to the requested
extraordinary relief in mandamus, and we affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals.
                                                                 Judgment affirmed.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                               __________________
        Gregory D. Johnson, pro se.
                               __________________




                                          3