FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Columbus) - Ohio’s Tenth District Court of Appeals today issued a ruling in the class action lawsuit known as Ankrom v. Hageman. The Court of Appeals affirmed all significant portions of the order issued Aug. 31, 2004 by Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge David E. Cain.

Relying in part on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, the Court of Appeals found that the past practices of the Adult Parole Authority (APA) deny the Ankrom class members a meaningful parole eligibility hearing.

The Court of Appeals also found that the APA has regularly ignored statutory law and the sentences imposed by judges, thus violating the separation of powers doctrine.

“[B]ecause the trial court’s sentence establishes the minimum sentence and, consequently, the date of statutory eligibility, the APA’s denial of meaningful consideration at the time of initial parole eligibility effectively disregards the trial court’s sentence…the APA's wide-ranging authority and discretion over parole matters must yield when they run afoul of statutory enactments and contractual law. The same must hold true when the APA's authority and discretion run afoul of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers."

Assistant Public Defender Charles Clovis characterized the Court of Appeals’ decision as “a major victory.”

"The courts have spoken. Ohio's parole board cannot disregard the legislature and the judiciary any longer," Clovis said. “With this decision, thousands of Ohio inmates will finally receive a fair and meaningful parole hearing."

As a result of today’s ruling by the Tenth District Court of Appeals, the APA should begin complying with the affirmed parts of Judge Cain’s decision. Judge Cain ordered the APA “to immediately re-hear and grant meaningful consideration for parole” to Ankrom class members.

In Ankrom, filed and pursued by Assistant Public Defender Charles Clovis, the plaintiffs are thousands of inmates who are serving indeterminate sentences under “old” (pre-SB 2) criminal sentencing laws. SB 2, which became effective July 1, 1996, eliminated indeterminate sentences for all but the most serious offenses, but was not applied retroactively. This created two classes of inmates—those sentenced under the old laws and those sentenced under SB 2—who serve different amounts of time for the same offenses. “New law” inmates serve definite sentences, while “old law” inmates’ release dates are determined by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority.

Although the exact number of Ohio inmates affected by the Ankrom decision is not yet known, the Office of the Ohio Public Defender estimates that the APA will have to re-hear 3,000-6,000 cases.

Click here for a copy of the Tenth District Court of Appeals Opinion

Click here for Ankrom v. Hageman update page