Press - OPD Sues Adult Parole Authority to Stop Abuse of Power

MARCH 27, 2001 PRESS RELEASE

OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER SUES ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY TO STOP ABUSE OF POWER

On March 26, 2001, the Office of the Ohio Public Defender filed a class-action lawsuit in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas against Harry Hageman, Deputy Director of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Margarette Ghee, Chairperson on the Ohio Parole Board, and the eleven members of the Ohio Parole Board, seeking declaratory relief on behalf of thousands of Ohio inmates.

David H. Bodiker, the Ohio Public Defender, said "We took this case to seek fair play. All we want is for the Parole Board to respect the decisions made by trial judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers. In 1998, the Parole Authority changed its rules midstream. Now, the Parole Board basically punishes inmates as they see fit without proper respect for the sentences handed down by judges, and without proper respect for the agreements between prosecutors and defense lawyers. We respect the Parole Board’s lawful power, but we think the Parole Board has trespassed on the power of trial judges and the agreements reached between prosecutors and defense lawyers. We hope that this lawsuit will bring the Parole Board back in line with their proper power to make parole decisions based on what happened in court, not based on what they think should have happened in court."

The Ohio Public Defender is challenging the Parole Board’s practice of projecting inmates’ parole release dates according to charges amended or dismissed pursuant to plea agreements, instead of according to actual convictions. This practice primarily affects inmates sentenced before 1996, when the legislature enacted new "truth in sentencing" laws providing for definite sentences in most cases.

In 1998 the Parole Board issued a Guidelines Manual establishing a new system for projecting inmates’ parole release dates. The Parole Board uses the Guidelines Manual to assign an "Offense Category" and "Risk Score" to each inmate. These numbers are then applied to a chart in the Guidelines Manual that provides a range of months to be served before release on parole.

The Parole Board regularly assigns Offense Categories according to charges that were amended or dismissed pursuant to plea agreements. In criminal cases county prosecutors do not offer plea agreements casually. And trial judges approve plea agreements only after careful consideration of the facts of each case. By assigning Offense Categories according to indictments rather than convictions, the Parole Board disregards – often in a matter of minutes – the extensive work done by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges.

The Parole Board's current practice of assigning Offense Categories according to indictments not only usurps the authority of prosecutors and judges, it also breaches contracts. A plea agreement is a binding contract between a criminal defendant and the State of Ohio. When the Parole Board, an agent of the State, assigns an inmate to the wrong Offense Category, it breaches the plea agreement between the inmate and the State. The remedy sought by the Ohio Public Defender is the placement of all inmates who pleaded guilty into Offense Categories corresponding to actual convictions, rather than indictments.

Keisha Harth, one of the named Plaintiffs in the suit, is a shocking but all-too-typical example of the injustice wrought by the Parole Board’s unlawful use of its Guidelines Manual. In 1994 Ms. Harth was indicted for Aggravated Murder, Attempted Aggravated Murder, Aggravated Robbery, and Failure to Comply with a Police Officer. After a careful investigation the State decided, with the court's approval, not to hold Miss Harth responsible for the murder and attempted murder for which she had been indicted. Ms. Harth pleaded guilty to Aggravated Robbery and Failure to Comply and was sentenced to 7-to-25 years in prison.

Today Ms. Harth is a model prisoner who has served almost seven years. Were she placed in the Offense Category for Aggravated Robbery, she would be considered for release on parole soon, and her efforts towards rehabilitation would be taken into account. Instead, the Parole Board ignored the decisions of the prosecutor and the court, and assigned Ms. Harth to the Offense Category for Aggravated Murder. The effect of this assignment is that Ms. Harth will never be considered for parole and must serve her entire 25-year sentence, or more than twice the length of the maximum sentence she could receive for the same convictions under current law.

The Parole Board’s purpose is to determine whether inmates who are eligible for parole should be released. Under Ohio law, the Parole Board is given great discretion to exercise this authority. But the Parole Board is now abusing its discretion and exceeding its authority by projecting inmates’ parole release dates according to charges amended or dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement, instead of according to actual convictions. With the class-action lawsuit filed on March 26, 2001, the Ohio Public Defender aims to curb this unlawful expansion of the Parole Board’s power.

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

Contact Person:

Charles B. Clovis

Assistant Public Defender

(614) 466 - 5394