Ohio Supreme Court, 1997

State ex rel. Lake v. Anderson

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided December 31, 1997 · Moyer, Douglas, Resnick, Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook, Stratton

1997 Ohio 284; 80 Ohio St. 3d 491

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Pryor v. Lazaroff (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Jones v. McAninch (Ohio 1999)
Jones v. McAninch (Ohio 1999)
Barnett v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Board (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Wynn v. McCormick (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio 1998)
Barnett v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio 1998)

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

Per Curiam.

Lake asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his petition and not holding an evidentiary hearing. Lake’s assertions, however, are meritless for the following reasons.

First, as the court of appeals correctly determined, the APA had authority to correct Lake’s release date. Cf. Hattie v. Anderson (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 232, *492 233, 626 N.E.2d 67, 70 (“[T]he APA possesses discretion to rescind an unexecuted order for a prisoner to receive parole at a future date without providing a hearing.”). Lake has no right to be released before the expiration of his actual sentence. See State ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 630 N.E.2d 696, 698. Second, Lake did not verify his petition. McBroom v. Russell (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 47, 48, 671 N.E.2d 10, 11; R.C. 2725.04. Finally, Lake did not attach all of his pertinent commitment papers to his petition. Brown v. Rogers (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 340-341, 650 N.E.2d 422, 423; R.C. 2725.04(D). Although Lake claimed entitlement to release from prison based on a release date specified in the APA’s March 1995 parole revocation order, he did not attach a copy of this order to his petition.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not err in dismissing Lake’s petition. No evidentiary hearing was required. See Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 380, 382, 667 N.E.2d 1194, 1196; Marshall v. Lazaroff (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 443, 443-444, 674 N.E.2d 1378, 1378-1379. 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.