Opinion
No. 90-2525
Submitted April 16, 1991 —
Decided August 14, 1991.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 90AP-778.
On June 28, 1990, relator-appellant, John D. Hemphill, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, sought a writ of prohibition in the court of appeals, essentially requesting:
(1) an order vacating the decision of the Ohio Parole Board ("board"), which denied him parole;
(2) an order directing the board to either grant him parole or conduct a fair and impartial hearing, excluding any evidence of alleged crimes that did not result in charges; and
(3) an order preventing the board from examining allegations of his prior criminal misconduct at his next parole hearing.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), respondent-appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority, filed a motion to dismiss relator's complaint for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court of appeals granted the motion and hold that relator's complaint does not state a claim in prohibition and that the Parole Board has broad discretion to investigate and examine an inmate's pattern of criminal behavior if there is a rational basis for doing so.
The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.
John Hemphill, pro se. Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Steven W. Ritz, for appellee.
We affirm the court of appeals' decision for the reasons stated in its opinion.
In order for a writ of prohibition to lie, three requirements must be satisfied: (1) the court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of such power must be unauthorized by law, and (3) it will result in an injury for which no other adequate remedy exists. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225. However, Hemphill seeks, in part, to compel action on the part of the Parole Board; he wants to be released on parole or be granted a new hearing. The court of appeals considered this a request for a writ of mandamus, and not one for a writ of prohibition, but held that appellant could not prevail under either cause of action.
Appellant essentially objects to being questioned about other alleged crimes with which he was not charged. In State, ex rel. Lipschutz, v. Shoemaker (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 88, 551 N.E.2d 160, we rejected an inmate's claim that the Parole Board could not consider crimes which did not result in conviction. We noted that Ohio Adm. Code 5120:1-1-08 expressly permits consideration of the inmate's pattern of criminal or delinquent behavior prior to the current term of imprisonment as well as consideration of any other factors which the Parole Board determines to be relevant. We also noted that the Adult Parole Authority has broad powers under R.C. 2967.03 to investigate and examine the mental and moral qualities and characteristics of an inmate, and the Parole Board can consider such alleged offenses if there is a rational basis for doing so. Id. Moreover, in State, ex rel. Ferguson, v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 355, 544 N.E.2d 674, we held that consideration of crimes that do not result in convictions is not a basis for a denial-of-due-process claim.
In the present case, the Parole Board merely questioned Hemphill about the alleged offenses because there were indications in the board's records about alleged crimes. R.C. 2967.03 expressly provides for such an examination and, therefore, it is within the discretion of the board to make such inquiries.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.