State ex rel. Keith v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Supreme court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s motions to issue a show-cause order and to hold Appellees, Ohio Adult Parole Authority and the Chair of the Ohio Parole Board, in contempt for failing to conduct a new parole hearing, holding that there was no basis for ordering Appellees to take action or find them in contempt.

Appellant, then an inmate, filed an original action seeking a writ of mandamus, alleging that he had been denied meaningful parole consideration because Appellees had relied on incorrect information in his parole record. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court reversed, ordering Appellees to correct any information on Appellant’s parole record that was incorrect. Appellant later filed a motion for contempt and a motion for a show-cause order. The court of appeals denied the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellees complied with this Court’s original order, and therefore, there was no basis for ordering them to take additional action, much less a finding of contempt.

Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Keith v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4246.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-4246 THE STATE EX REL. KEITH, APPELLANT, v. DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION ET AL., APPELLEES. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Keith v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4246.] Criminal law—Inmate failed to show that substantively inaccurate information remains in his parole record, prejudicing his parole applications—Court of appeals’ judgment denying motions for show-cause and contempt orders affirmed. (No. 2018-0247—Submitted May 22, 2018—Decided October 23, 2018.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 12AP-408. ________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} In this appeal, appellant, Bernard R. Keith, again seeks to compel appellees, Ohio Adult Parole Authority and the Chair of the Ohio Parole Board, to SUPREME COURT OF OHIO conduct a new parole hearing. He appeals the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals denying motions to issue a show-cause order and to hold appellees in contempt. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. {¶ 2} On May 8, 2012, Keith, then an inmate at the Richland Correctional Institution, filed an original action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus. He alleged that he had been denied meaningful parole consideration because appellees had relied on information in his parole record that was incorrect. The court of appeals denied the writ. State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-408, 2013-Ohio-2514 (“Keith I”). We reversed and ordered appellees to review Keith’s parole record and correct any information that was incorrect and was used to consider him for parole. 141 Ohio St.3d 375, 2014-Ohio-4270, 24 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 32. {¶ 3} On November 30, 2015, Keith filed a second mandamus action, in which he alleged that appellees had not complied with this court’s mandate to correct erroneous information and give his parole application “meaningful consideration.” State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-1080, 2017-Ohio-4406, ¶ 11 (“Keith II”). The court of appeals denied the writ. Id. at ¶ 15. Keith filed two separate appeals that we consolidated. We affirmed. __Ohio St.3d__, 2018-Ohio-3128, __N.E.3d__, ¶ 17. {¶ 4} Meanwhile, Keith attempted to reopen proceedings in Keith I, which had been dormant since October 2014. On January 16, 2017, he filed three pleadings in the court of appeals: a motion for contempt, a motion for a show-cause order, and a motion for an order enforcing the mandate. The court of appeals denied the contempt and show-cause motions on January 22, 2018, without mentioning the third motion. {¶ 5} Keith appealed. {¶ 6} The allegations made in Keith’s contempt and enforcement motions are the same as those made in the Keith II mandamus action: that substantively 2 January Term, 2018 inaccurate information remains in his parole record, prejudicing his parole applications. We have rejected these claims. Given our holding in Keith II that appellees have complied with our original order to purge Keith’s parole record of inaccurate material information, there is no basis for ordering them to take additional action, much less for a finding of contempt. Judgment affirmed. O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur. _________________ Bernard R. Keith, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and George Horvath, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees. _________________ 3
Primary Holding

The Supreme court affirmed the denial of Appellant’s motions to issue a show-cause order and to hold Appellees in contempt for failing to conduct a new parole hearing, holding that there was no basis for ordering Appellees to take action or find them in contempt.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.