Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

State ex rel. Finfrock v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided January 7, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

80 Ohio St. 3d 639; 687 N.E.2d 761

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2018)
State ex rel. Milner v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 2000)
Pryor v. Lazaroff (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Adkins v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Hall v. Turner (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
O'Neal v. State (Neb. 2015)
Woodson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Unpublished Decision (12-5-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State Ex Rel. Simms v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (12-3-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State Ex Rel. Simms v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (12-3-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Amburgey v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Unpublished Decision (10-22-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
People v. Cackler (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)
State ex rel. Milner v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio 2000)
Watkins v. Dept. of Rehabilitation Corr., Unpublished Decision (12-9-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Adkins v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Finfrock 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 of the Court

Per Curiam.

Finfrock asserts in his various propositions of law that the court of appeals erred by denying the writ of mandamus. Finfrock contends, among *640other things, that his parole revocation hearing was void because the APA did not comply with the minimum due process requirements set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484.

As we recently noted, however, in affirming an appeal in a similar case, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the proper action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 140, 684 N.E.2d 1227, citing State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 186, 188, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349.

In addition, even if the court of appeals had considered Finfrock’s action as one in habeas corpus instead of mandamus, Finfrock was also not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to attach his pertinent commitment papers, i.e., his conviction and sentence and his parole revocation. R.C. 2725.04(D); 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. Finfrock was not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief.

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.