STATE WASHINGTON v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY (1999)

Supreme Court of Ohio.

The STATE ex rel. WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, Appellee.

No. 99-1005.

Decided: December 01, 1999

Robert H. Washington, Jr., pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jihad M. Smaili, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Per Curiam. Washington asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action. Washington's claims are meritless.

As the court of appeals properly concluded, Washington, who does not claim that R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to mandamus actions, did not comply with the mandatory requirements of that statute in commencing his action. See State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 422, 696 N.E.2d 594, 594-595.

In addition, to the extent that Washington seeks release from prison, mandamus is inappropriate. State ex rel. Larkins v. Aurelius (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 112, 113, 702 N.E.2d 79, 79-80.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network