State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Board
Cases that cite this one
39 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- State ex rel. Mango v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
- State ex rel. Shie v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2022)
- State v. White (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
- Day v. Wilson (Ohio 2008)
- State ex rel. Cunningham v. Reed (Ohio 2008)
- State Ex Rel. Sansom v. Wilkinson, Unpublished Decision (3-27-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
- State Ex Rel, Miller v. Griffin, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
- State Ex Rel Nelson v. Mason, Unpublished Decision (11-22-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
- State ex rel. Milner v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 2000)
- Jackson v. Haskins (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
- Pryor v. Lazaroff (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
- State ex rel. Gilmore v. Mitchell (Ohio 1999)
- State ex rel. Parker v. Tate (Ohio 1999)
- State ex rel. Finfrock v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 1998)
- State ex rel. Dix v. McAllister (Ohio 1998)
- State ex rel. Smith v. Yost (Ohio 1998)
- State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott (Ohio 1998)
- State ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio 2023)
- State ex rel. Cartwright v. Ohio Adult Parole Bd. (Ohio 2023)
- Powers v. Timmerman-Cooper (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
- State ex rel. Pryor v. Martin (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
- Dewey v. State, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- State Ex Rel. Jones v. Pfeiffer, Unpublished Decision (3-25-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- State v. Warden of County Jail, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
- State Ex Rel. Daniels, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
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
Johnson asserts in his various propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ of mandamus because appellees did not comply with the minimum due process requirements of Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484, when they revoked his parole. Even if Johnson’s assertions are correct, he would not be entitled to reversal of the court of appeals’ judgment for the following reasons.
Johnson is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus for release from prison and reinstatement on parole. Habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the appropriate action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 186, 188, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349; State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 594, 635 N.E.2d 26, 30. As the court noted in Lemmon, 78 Ohio St.3d at 188, 677 N.E.2d at 349, “[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.” Although the court of appeals did not base its judgment on this rationale, a reviewing court will not reverse a correct judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as a basis thereof. State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 92, 637 N.E.2d 306, 309.
In addition, even if the court of appeals had considered Johnson’s action as one in habeas corpus rather than mandamus, Johnson was also not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to comply with R.C. 2725.04’s verification requirement. McBroom v. Russell (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 47, 48, 671 N.E.2d 10, 11.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. In so doing, we need not address the merits of the issues raised by the parties in this appeal. State ex rel. Gabriel v. Youngstown (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 618, 620, 665 N.E.2d 209, 210.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.