|
Parole Board Litigation Update:
Douglas Ankrom et al. v. Harry
Hageman et al. (the Ohio Parole Board)
Procedural History
In March 2001 the Office of the
Ohio Public Defender filed a class-action lawsuit against the Ohio Adult
Parole Authority and its subdivision, the Ohio Parole Board. The suit is
captioned Douglas Ankrom et al. v. Harry Hageman et al. and was
filed in Franklin County. In
Ankrom, the Ohio Public Defender challenged the Parole Board’s
application of new parole guidelines adopted in 1998. These
guidelines dramatically increased the length of time that inmates must
serve before becoming eligible for parole. As a result, thousands of
inmates have been forced to serve two and three times the maximum
sentences possible under current law.
The Plaintiff class is
comprised of “all parole-eligible Ohio prison inmates who pleaded
guilty or no contest to lesser or fewer charges than for which they were
indicted.” Anyone who meets this definition is automatically a
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
In December 2002 – while the Ankrom
suit was pending – the Ohio Supreme Court decided three related parole
cases, two of which were litigated by the Ohio Public Defender. In
Layne
v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority,
the Court held that the Parole Board must classify offenders according
to the crimes they were convicted of committing. Before Layne,
the Parole Board used its new guidelines to punish inmates for charges
that resulted in acquittals at trial, as well as charges that were
dropped or never brought in the first place.
The Parole Board granted
approximately 2,500 inmates new parole hearings in response to Layne.
Of those, approximately
1,400 were released from prison on parole and approximately 200 more
were given shorter sentences. Unfortunately,
thanks to the Parole Board’s extremely narrow interpretation of Layne,
thousands of inmates entitled to new hearings did not receive them.
On January 16, 2004, the
Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment in the trial court.
On August 31, 2004, the
Ankrom court granted the Ohio Public Defender’s motion for
summary judgment. The
court’s decision orders the Parole Board to immediately grant new
parole hearings for thousands of inmates who have been denied meaningful
consideration for parole.
On September 29, 2004, the
Parole Board appealed the trial court’s decision to the Tenth District
Court of Appeals in Franklin County.
However, on March 31, 2005, the court of appeals affirmed all
significant portions of the trial court's August 31, 2004 decision
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The
appellate court's unanimous decision was a major victory for the Ankrom
plaintiff class. The
court's decision is available here.
The
Parole Board had until May 16, 2005 to appeal the Tenth District's
decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. No
appeal was filed, and all affirmed portions of the trial court's August
31, 2004 decision became final. However,
following the Plaintiffs victory on appeal, the Parole Board released a
list of inmates eligible for new hearings under Ankrom. This
list was compiled without any consultation with the Ohio Public Defender
or the trial court. The criteria used by the Parole Board to form this
list did not correspond to the criteria contained in the trial
court's August 31, 2004 decision. As
a result, many Plaintiff class members who qualified for a new parole
hearing were not included on the Parole Board's list.
The Ohio Public Defender and
the Parole Board's attorneys subsequently met with the trial court on
June 3, 2005. At that meeting, Plaintiffs submitted a memorandum
detailing Defendants' failure to comply with the trial court's August
31, 2004 Decision and Entry. On
June 10, 2005, Defendants submitted a memorandum in response claiming
that Defendants are fully satisfying the trial court's judgment. On
June 21, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion to show cause why Defendants
should not be held in contempt of court.
In that motion, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are 1)
illegally denying thousands of Plaintiff class members the new parole
hearings to which they are entitled; 2) failing to conduct the
court-ordered rehearings as fast as possible; and 3) rendering much of
Plaintiffs' court-ordered relief unenforceable and illusory by refusing
to maintain adequate records of, and access to, class members'
rehearings.
On September 14, 2005, the
trial court issued a decision ordering the Parole Board's attorneys
“to immediately provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the necessary
information to determine if meaningful hearings are occurring and how
many have been accomplished.” The court stated that it will
"further consider" Plaintiffs' contempt motion after this
information has been supplied. The
court's decision is available here.
On May 5, 2006, lead attorney
Charles Clovis and the Office of the Ohio Public Defender filed a Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent
Injunction. In this Motion, Plaintiffs are asking the Court to
order the Adult Parole Authority to stop conducting parole re-hearings
in secret. A copy of the motion and exhibits are available here.
However, on June 20, 2006, the trial court denied Plaintiffs’
motion for injunctive relief.
The
Ankrom appeal
Plaintiffs
Ankrom et al. filed a timely appeal to the Tenth District Court of
Appeals. Defendants’
attempt to persuade the appellate court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ appeal
proved unsuccessful. Following
briefing, Attorney Charles Clovis, lead counsel for Plaintiffs Douglas
Ankrom et al., argued on behalf of his clients at the January 31, 2007
oral argument in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, in Franklin
County, Ohio. The case was
then submitted to the three-judge panel of Judge Peggy Bryant, Judge
Susan Brown, and visiting judge Alba Whiteside for consideration.
The Court has yet to issue a decision, although a decision should
be forthcoming within the next few months.
The question
before the court of appeals in Ankrom is whether the trial court
abused its discretion when it denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction.
In that motion, Plaintiffs sought to restrain the parole board
from continuing to conduct Ankrom re-hearings in secret, in light
of evidence that inmates were not receiving meaningful consideration for
parole at re-hearings. Concerns
about the parole board’s continuing failure to afford meaningful
consideration arose when attorneys for the plaintiff class began
receiving hundreds of complaints from class members who received
less-than-meaningful consideration during Ankrom re-hearings.
Despite the parole board’s documented lack of compliance with
the August 31, 2004 court decision requiring them to afford meaningful
consideration for parole, the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
on June 20, 2006. The appeal
followed.
The
Ankrom class action
There
have been no changes on the case in the trial court.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not
Be Held in Contempt has yet to be decided.
Defendants’ assertion that the plaintiff class does not
“contemplate the inclusion of inmates who were convicted of the
offense of aggravated murder, murder, or rape with a life sentence” is
yet another contentious issue fueling the ongoing litigation.
The trial court has been silent on the issue, since issuing its Entry
of Clarification Concerning the Plaintiff-Class Members in January
2006. In the January 2006
Entry, the court seemed to support Plaintiffs’ position when it
stated: “The definition
of the Plaintiff class is not offense specific, but is limited to
Plaintiff class members who pleaded guilty or no contest to their
offense(s) of conviction.” However,
the court’s clarification brought no end to the Ohio Parole Board’s
continued exclusion of inmates who were convicted of the offense of
aggravated murder, murder, or rape with a life sentence, from the post-Ankrom
re-hearings. Attorneys
for the Plaintiffs intend to re-focus their efforts on the remaining
issues in the trial court while awaiting a decision from the court of
appeals.
New
Guidelines – Effective July 1, 2007
The
Third Edition of the Ohio Parole Board’s Guidelines Manual became
effective on July 1, 2007. A
copy of the latest version of the Guidelines can be downloaded from the
Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections website at:
http://www.drc.state.oh.us/
Second Amended
Complaint
-
Exhibit
A - Ohio Parole Board Guidelines Manual
-
Exhibit
B - Plaintiff Ankrom's Indictment, Plea Agreement, and
Sentence
-
Exhibit
C - Plaintiff Harth's Indictment, Plea Agreement and
Sentence
-
Exhibit
D - Plaintiff Herrington's Indictment, Plea Agreement, and
Sentence
-
Exhibit
E - Plaintiff Lilly's Indictment and Sentence
-
Exhibit
F - Plaintiff Ankrom's Parole Board Decision
-
Exhibit
G - Plaintiff Harth's Parole Hearing Record
-
Exhibit
H - Plaintiff Herrington's Parole Board Decision
For
a complete copy of the Second Amended Complaint click here!
Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order
-
Exhibit
A - Affidavit of Charles B. Clovis
-
Exhibit
B - Post- Layne polices and procedures
-
Exhibit
C - Defendants' spreadsheets
-
Exhibit
D - Three representative decision sheets from Defendants' most
recent disclosure to Plaintiffs
-
Exhibit
E - Letter from Plaintiff class members
Press Releases
|
