State ex rel. Woodard v. Hoying

2026-Ohio-1351 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District · April 14, 2026 · No. No. 24AP-307

Summary

The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio denied Keimarkus Woodard’s petition for a writ of mandamus against the Ohio Adult Parole Authority. The court adopted the magistrate’s decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the parole-violation findings and that Woodard failed to establish a clear legal duty, abuse of discretion, or due-process violation. The action was dismissed.

Holdings

  1. Woodard was not entitled to mandamus because he failed to establish a clear legal right to the requested relief or a clear legal duty requiring the Ohio Adult Parole Authority to find that he had not violated his supervision conditions.
  2. The Ohio Adult Parole Authority's conclusion that Woodard violated the terms of his parole was supported by substantial evidence.
  3. The Authority was not required to re-serve Woodard after amending the location of the Rule 1 violations, and the amendment did not violate due process.
  4. Woodard did not establish that the use of hearsay or evidence obtained through the seizure and forensic examination of his cell phone required mandamus relief.
  5. An internal policy of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction or the Ohio Adult Parole Authority does not, by itself, create a legal duty enforceable in mandamus.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Woodard established a clear legal right to mandamus relief requiring the Ohio Adult Parole Authority to conduct another parole-revocation hearing and remove him from post-release control.
  2. Whether the amendment of the location stated for the Rule 1 violations required the Authority to re-serve the notice of violations or otherwise violated due process.
  3. Whether the parole-revocation findings were supported by substantial evidence.
  4. Whether the Authority improperly relied on hearsay or evidence obtained from Woodard's cell phone in the parole-revocation proceeding.
  5. Whether internal Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction policies created a legal duty enforceable in mandamus.

Disposition

writ_denied

Cases Cited (24)

  • State ex rel. Alleyne v. Indus. Comm., 2004-Ohio-4223 (10th Dist.)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967)(followed)
  • Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 2020-Ohio-5371, ¶ 26(followed)
  • State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2013-Ohio-3720, ¶ 14(followed)
  • State v. Kaimachiande, 2019-Ohio-1939, ¶ 20 (3d Dist.)(followed)
  • State v. Newsome, 2017-Ohio-7488, ¶ 21 (4th Dist.)(followed)
  • State v. Simpkins, 2006-Ohio-3496, ¶ 13 n.3 (8th Dist.)(followed)
  • Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio App.3d 26, 36-37 (10th Dist. 1991)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Mango v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2022-Ohio-1559, ¶¶ 11, 14, 18-19(followed)
  • State ex rel. Coulverson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 62 Ohio St.3d 12, 16 (1991)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…