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

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the dismissal of Wendell R. Lindsay II’s habeas corpus petition. The court held that an inmate has no constitutional right to parole before expiration of the sentence, that an agency mistake regarding parole does not create a vested right to immediate release, and that any procedural due-process remedy would not be immediate release. The court also rejected Lindsay’s ex post facto and separation-of-powers arguments, explaining that he was sentenced under Ohio’s sexually violent predator sentencing law rather than convicted of a sexually violent predator specification.

Holdings

1. Habeas corpus does not lie to secure immediate release where the alleged error does not establish unlawful custody or entitle the petitioner to immediate release; an inmate has no constitutional right to parole before expiration of the sentence.
2. Even assuming a protected liberty interest, an alleged procedural-due-process violation in parole-review procedures would at most support mandamus compelling a second review, not habeas corpus relief requiring immediate release.
3. The record did not establish that DRC imposed an uncharged sexually-violent-predator specification or changed Lindsay's judicially imposed sentence; DRC's reconsideration of parole status therefore did not support Lindsay's ex post facto or separation-of-powers claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lindsay's habeas petition could obtain immediate release based on prison officials' mistaken communications that he had been granted parole.
2. Whether the alleged rescission of the prospective release date violated due process or equal protection.
3. Whether applying the sexually-violent-predator sentencing law or reconsidering Lindsay's parole status violated the Ex Post Facto Clause or separation-of-powers doctrine.

Disposition

affirmed