Ohio Supreme Court, 1999

State ex rel. Vaughn v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided April 28, 1999 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

85 Ohio St. 3d 378; 708 N.E.2d 720

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Calo v. Black (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
Woodson v. Mohr, Unpublished Decision (7-16-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Ridenour v. Randle (Ohio 2002)
State ex rel. Bray v. Brigano (Ohio 2001)
Corrin v. Huffman, Unpublished Decision (8-25-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State ex rel. McCuller v. Ghee (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Shine v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Chambers-Smith, Dir. (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Oapa, Unpublished Decision (7-13-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Walker v. Ghee, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Ridenour v. Randle (Ohio 2002)
Sims v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Unpublished Decision (11-29-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State ex rel. Bray v. Brigano (Ohio 2001)
State ex rel. McCuller v. Ghee (Ohio 2000)
State v. Wilkinson, Unpublished Decision (9-9-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Vaughn v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio 1999)

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.

Vaughn asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action. For the following reasons, Vaughn’s assertion lacks merit.

Initially, because Vaughn has no constitutional or statutory right to parole, he has no similar right to earlier consideration of parole. State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 267, 268, 690 N.E.2d 887, 888. As the court of appeals correctly observed, “[t]he APA’s use of internal guidelines does not alter the discretionary nature of the parole decision, because neither statute nor regulation created the guidelines and the [APA] is not bound to follow them.” See, e.g., State ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 123, 123-124, 630 N.E.2d 696, 697.

In addition, Vaughn is not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel his release from prison on parole because habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the proper action to compel release from prison. State ex rel. Adkins v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 171, 172, 694 N.E.2d 958, 959.

Based on the foregoing, 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.