State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

78 Ohio St.3d 186

.]




       THE STATE EX REL. LEMMON, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE
                                AUTHORITY, APPELLEE.
      THE STATE EX REL. KNOEFEL, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE
                                AUTHORITY, APPELLEE.
      THE STATE EX REL. SHERMAN, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE
                                AUTHORITY, APPELLEE.
      THE STATE EX REL. ANDERSON, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE
                                AUTHORITY, APPELLEE.
       THE STATE EX REL. BILLMAN, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE
                                AUTHORITY, APPELLEE.
  [Cite as State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 

1997-Ohio-223

.]
Complaints in mandamus seeking release from Grafton Correctional Institution
        dismissed, when.
  (Nos. 96-2463, 96-2464, 96-2466, 96-2467 and 96-2468—Submitted March 4,
                            1997—Decided April 16, 1997.)
  APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Nos. 96APD07-845,
         96APD07-849, 96APD07-869, 96APD07-851 and 96APD07-850.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellants, inmates incarcerated in Grafton Correctional Institution,
appeal from dismissals of their mandamus complaints filed in the Court of Appeals
for Franklin County. In these five cases, appellants filed similar form complaints
for a writ of mandamus in the court of appeals. They alleged that they were
convicted of various felonies and sentenced to indeterminate terms prior to the July
1, 1996 effective date of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2, which amended the felony sentencing
provisions. Appellants claimed that equal protection and due process required
application of the provisions of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 to them and that under these
                                  SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




amended sentencing provisions, they had already served their maximum sentences
and were entitled to release from prison. Appellants requested writs of mandamus
to compel appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority, to immediately conduct hearings
and release them. The court of appeals granted appellee’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions
and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
         {¶ 2} These causes are now before this court upon appeals as of right.1
                                  ____________________
         Richard Lemmon, pro se.
         David C. Knoefel, pro se.
         Laurece D. Sherman, pro se.
         Bryan L. Anderson, pro se.
         Raymond L. Billman, pro se.
         Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Timothy J. Mangan, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
                                  ____________________
         Per Curiam.
         {¶ 3} Appellants assert that the court of appeals erred in dismissing their
mandamus actions. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the court
of appeals.
         {¶ 4} Initially, as the court of appeals determined and appellants concede,
Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 expressly provides that the amended sentencing provisions do
not apply to persons convicted and sentenced prior to July 1, 1996. See Section 5,
Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 (“The provisions of the Revised Code in existence prior to July




1. We sua sponte consolidate these cases for purposes of opinion because they raise identical legal
issues. See State ex rel. Wilcox v. Seidner (1996), 

76 Ohio St.3d 412, 413

, 

667 N.E.2d 1220, 1221

.




                                                2
                               January Term, 1997




1, 1996, shall apply to a person upon whom a court imposed a term of imprisonment
prior to that date ***.”).
        {¶ 5} Second, contrary to appellants’ contentions on appeal, the refusal of
the General Assembly to retroactively apply the differing provisions of
Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 to persons convicted and sentenced before July 1, 1996 did not
violate their rights to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. “[T]he 14th Amendment does not
forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate
between the rights of an earlier and later time.” Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes
(1911), 

220 U.S. 502, 505

, 

31 S.Ct. 490, 491

, 

55 L.Ed. 561, 563

; State v. Rush (S.C.
1991), 

305 S.C. 113, 115

, 

406 S.E.2d 355, 356

 (“[E]qual protection is not offended
by treating those who committed DUI offenses prior to the effective date of the
amendment differently from those who committed offenses after that date.”). This
holding comports with the conclusions of appellate courts that have addressed the
constitutionality of this aspect of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2. State v. Fannin (Feb. 11,
1997), Franklin App. No. 96APA07-935, unreported, 

1997 WL 65529

; State
v. Jefferson (May 24, 1996), Richland App. No. 95-CA-7, unreported, 

1996 WL 3636547

.
        {¶ 6} Finally, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the appropriate
action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. See, e.g.,
State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 

69 Ohio St.3d 591, 594

, 

635 N.E.2d 26, 30

(“[M]andamus is no longer available in these cases given the availability of habeas
corpus.”). A contrary holding would permit inmates seeking immediate release
from prison to employ mandamus to circumvent the statutory pleading
requirements for instituting a habeas corpus action, i.e., attachment of commitment
papers and verification. R.C. 2725.04; Brown v. Rogers (1995), 

72 Ohio St.3d 339

,

650 N.E.2d 422

; McBroom v. Russell (1996), 

77 Ohio St.3d 47

, 

671 N.E.2d 10

.




                                         3
                           SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly determined that
appellants’ mandamus complaints failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the court of appeals.
                                                             Judgments affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                             __________________




                                        4