Johnson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Johnson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 2002-Ohio-4187.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 81100 JOHN A. JOHNSON : : Plaintiff-appellant : : vs. : : OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, : ET AL. : : Defendant-appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION : AUGUST 15, 2002 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : : : Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-450649 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: John A. Johnson, Pro Se A145-213 P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901-0788 For defendant-appellant: Philip A. King, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Corrections Litigation Sec. 140 E. Town St. 14th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-6001 [Cite as Johnson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 2002-Ohio-4187.] KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J.: {¶1} This cause came to be heard on the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc. App.R. 11.1. The purpose of an accelerated appeal is to permit an appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158. {¶2} Plaintiff-appellant John A. Johnson appeals from the trial court order that dismissed his action for a declaratory judgment. {¶3} Appellant asserts in his assignments of error the trial court improperly failed to take into consideration his good faith effort to comply with statutory requirements and also improperly concluded appellant s constitutional rights were not violated by the modification of his death sentence without a resentencing hearing. This incorrect. Consequently, the trial court s order is affirmed. {¶4} court concludes, however, that appellant is Appellant s appeal stems from the decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court in Bell v. Ohio (1978), 438 U.S. 586, and in Lockett v. Ohio (1978), 438 U.S. 637, which determined unconstitutional the Ohio statutory scheme for imposition of the death penalty as it existed at that time. inmates affected by those two decisions. Appellant was one of the 3 {¶5} In compliance with them, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an order dated August 16, 1978 modifying the death sentence imposed upon appellant, reducing the sentence to a term of life imprisonment. {¶6} action. Twenty-three years later, appellant filed the instant Appellant sought a declaration from the trial court that The Ohio Supreme Court s order had mandated his life sentence only be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction such as the trial court. {¶7} Defendant-appellee, eventually filed pleadings. a Civ.R. The 12(C) Ohio Adult motion Parole for Authority1 judgment on the Appellee contended appellant had failed to meet the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 prior to filing his action, and, further, authority no to controversy modify existed appellant s since the sentence. supreme The court trial had court subsequently granted appellee s motion without opinion. {¶8} Appellant s two assignments of error are overruled on the basis of Peterson v. Teodosio (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 165-166; State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Board (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 421, and Vargas v. Metzer (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 116. Appellant made no showing on the face of his complaint that the mandatory 1 Although the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts also was named as a defendant in the action, appellant does not challenge the trial court s order that granted dismissal of his action pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as to that defendant. 4 requirements R.C. 2969.25 were inapplicable; hence, dismissal was appropriate. R.C. 2969.24(B). Moreover, pursuant to Art. IV, Section 2(B)(2)(a)(ii) of the Ohio Constitution, The Ohio Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over cases in which the death penalty has been affirmed. {¶9} The trial court s order of dismissal, therefore, is affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 5 A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. KENNETH A. ROCCO PRESIDING JUDGE JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. and MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J. CONCUR

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.