12/18/02 PRESS RELEASE RE: DECISION BY THE OHIO SUPREME COURT 
FINDING ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY'S PAROLE GUIDELINE PROCEDURE FLAWED 

Columbus - December 18, 2002 - Today, the Ohio Supreme Court corrected a long-standing injustice affecting thousands of Ohio's prison inmates. Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2002-Ohio-6719.  In a vote of 6 to 1, the Court held that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority must project inmates' parole release dates according to inmates' actual crimes of conviction.  In 1998, the OAPA adopted new parole guidelines that drastically changed the way inmates are considered for parole. Under these new guidelines, the OAPA projected some inmates' release dates, not according to the convictions in court but according to charges never brought, charges that were dropped, or charges that resulted in acquittals at trial.  Today's decision affects approximately 18,000 inmates incarcerated across the state.

David H. Bodiker, the Ohio Public Defender, applauded the outcome of this case, and the attorneys from his office for their dedication and hard work on the matter. "Today's decision restores basic fairness to Ohio's parole system.  Before this decision, the parole board routinely disregarded the decisions made by judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.  The Supreme Court has spoken loudly and in a clear voice. All Ohio inmates must receive meaningful consideration for parole based on what happened in court.  No longer may the parole board deny inmates consideration based on what it thinks should have happened in court.  A great wrong has been righted."

As described in the Layne opinion, the OAPA's new parole guidelines "set forth a 'parole guidelines chart' to determine the range of time that a prisoner should serve before being released.  When considering inmates for parole the APA relies on a combination of two factors: the seriousness of an offender's criminal offense and the offender's risk of recidivism. To use the guidelines chart, each inmate is assigned two numbers that correspond to the above factors, an offense category score and a criminal history/risk score.  The assigned numbers are then located on the guidelines chart, which is a grid with the offense category scores along the vertical axis and the criminal history/risk scores along the horizontal axis.  At each intersection of the two scores there is an 'applicable guideline range,' indicating a range of months an inmate must serve before being released."

Today's decision affects the offense category. By requiring the Adult Parole Authority to "assign an inmate the offense category score that corresponds to the offense or offenses of conviction", the Ohio Supreme Court has ordered relief long sought by thousands of Ohio inmates, their families, and friends.  Until today, the OAPA routinely assigned offense category scores based upon their own arbitrary decisions, ignored plea agreements and used unproven allegations to deny inmates consideration for parole.

The Ohio Supreme Court consolidated three cases in the Layne opinion.  Wiley Layne from Marion County, Gerald Houston from Allen County, and Howard Lee from Montgomery County, all challenged the Ohio Adult Parole Authority's practice of establishing parole board guidelines based on "the alleged underlying criminal activity rather than on the offense or offenses of which the inmate was convicted." Layne at ¶23. Assistant State Public Defenders Charlie Clovis, Siobhan O'Keeffe Clovis, and John Fenlon of the Office of the Ohio Public Defender represented Layne and Lee. Attorneys John Pope and Eric Allen represented Houston. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Todd R. Marti, Assistant Attorney General represented the Ohio Adult Parole Authority and Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

Contact Person: Charles B. Clovis, Assistant State Public Defender

614-466-5394 

Click here to view the Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 
Opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court website

Click on the below link to view the Case Updates, Amended Complaint and Exhibits:
Ohio Public Defender Sues Adult Parole Authority 
to Stop Abuse of Power