Ohio Supreme Court, 1989

State ex rel. Ferguson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided September 27, 1989 · No. 89-768 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

45 Ohio St. 3d 355; 544 N.E.2d 674; 1989 Ohio LEXIS 243

Cases that cite this one

40 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Fussell (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
Wilson v. Miller (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
State v. Zahoransky, Unpublished Decision (1-16-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Perotti v. Ishee, Unpublished Decision (10-29-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Lackey v. Dave Johnson, Unpublished Decision (11-29-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Solley v. Tate, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Stout v. State, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt (Ohio 1994)
Wilson v. Warden, Franklin Medical Center (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2020)
Ridenour v. Collins (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2010)
Wolf v. Hudson, 08-Ca-71 (11-5-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State v. Ferguson, Unpublished Decision (2-5-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Woodson v. Mohr, Unpublished Decision (7-16-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Tomlin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Unpublished Decision (1-31-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Whiteside v. Wilkinson (6th Cir. 2001)
Thompson v. Ghee (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Nedea v. Voinovich (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1998)
King v. Dallman (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
Bobby Brewer v. Eric G. Dahlberg (6th Cir. 1991)
Hemphill v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 1991)
Kirkland v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Unpublished Decision (11-28-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Kirkland v. Mausser, Unpublished Decision (11-28-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
White v. Croft, Unpublished Decision (5-13-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Festi v. Oapa, Unpublished Decision (7-19-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Ohio Adult Parole, Unpublished Decision (9-23-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Ferguson argues that the board denied him due process by considering misconduct not resulting in criminal convictions; by not giving him notice that such misconduct would be considered, or an opportunity to disprove it; and by explaining its *356decision to deny parole by means of a preprinted form couched solely in terms of the applicable regulations, without setting forth the factual underpinnings of the board’s conclusions.

We need not decide whether any or all of these would constitute denials of due process. We have held that R.C. 2967.03 creates no presumption that parole will be granted when designated findings are made. State, ex rel. Blake, v. Shoemaker (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 42, 43, 4 OBR 86, 87, 446 N.E. 2d 169, 170. Therefore, Ferguson has been deprived of no liberty interest upon which he can base a due-process claim.

The court of appeals was also correct in dismissing Ferguson’s claims that the applicable regulations were violated. Ferguson contends that the board failed to show good cause for scheduling his second hearing for 1997. But the board’s answer to his ninth interrogatory explains that this decision was based on the seriousness of Ferguson’s offense and the likelihood that he has committed other sexual offenses. We agree with the court of appeals that this constitutes “good cause” under Ohio Adm. Code 5120:1-1-10(B).

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.