qRSio E'R&!

Gay St . t, 16tia Floor

43

U7,

MAR 07 2011

CLERK OF COtIRTSUPREME COU4t OF OHIO

TABLE OF C.^3NT

$tiots of c^h.y this case is a case of great public or general i.ntertbstantial constitutional question

First 1?rCSp;rsi,

%tiai AN Ai.'p' :i 3S Pi7x:iSIED `AME FC'iP. THE S41E flFFEN5f!:^ E,".OIATIqIN ZWO SFpUNISEfM`2' iS Tx^10 qEPi%RATE PAROI,,F: VT

ANXM^M GtJA."4^"111M 10 E?,F FREE OF t7€ILTIAE PUNISHMad'rS IS 0AS IM EQUi`^Af^IT GI.hiJSE OF `I,i:IE UP-1I() ti:;ONSTZTLTI1L5N«

Second Proposition of Law

T^.V ATEBZA?, 1'1JtTRT DF.CI^.2E5 IN OPEN MUR.T TRAT I'i 3EE.S MMIT IN IM TiELA"̂ClW5CLA1MS A^`i^ MOtdk: OF T.3E fl"LHER CR3`TRIA FOR URANI:tNG SiRt9P12Y J611:G ' ARC ^'"TYET' 3&3E >c Ula'P GPAMS S Y.Ti7fGEt tEM IN FAVOR OF Tig RESPCENs1DSi' CITINGTffg RELA-IUR iLAS NO GTNiJSM, IBSUE i T'd3E O{3llT'sT ViS3IXLEoo 'L'3iE Ai'P..?.ZL>,^W 'SfK}NSTITU£IOfitAla RIGHr' TO AFA:CTt TRIAL :AND THE 13t1'E PROCESS OF TAW GUARATEEDHIM t3Y x DIE U.S. AF3P QIFLt3 CONSTT:tU.I'TOtdSa P. 8"11

c3f

A MEfTIC7Pu a', âe 'nWE'x''.̀,^. A Wt2T.I' OF KAITW:US IS Irrm wp APpELL A^C w4i0 coiTiR3m 2"aE APA AwSkD T.T °S Discun

A iMARZKG FOP. TE1AT L't3RPOSF OF llEi'E' iNGi UbA'T' `11*; Ak'A. vs,UtAt'w txPEL.WARDY AtAt^SS MT V7l7IATICN ItESUZ+IED IN A WK OF JiRZ5DiCT°T.L1l'+1AB INI`T3Oy

DENIED V1C1IKaS THE P.PPULW'5 RZGn °1'4'? '3W 33C7E PROCESS OF LAW i3Nt)Ft2 Wi[I:tIM U.S MD OHIO CONST'ZTPTI:Oi35. P. 11-13

Canelusi€m

Gerta.f3,cate of Service

Appendix 12th Uistrict Caur;t of Appeals decision in State ex relsr Adult 'Para3e Authority rendered on 1-32P2012

P. 13

P. 14

q

y clause of tie Fifth smenftent and the Doublat JeoWdy

via violation in the S4

titution of fendW by ^^ faet that the ap4mllant . .

not due to the fazt that t

AVA"s +

jcrl.sdicticare to ^a-revoca te the 4Vollmt as nd tUre?

esi a parole = Tne ^

: DiaLTiet CCrc?r

U,

Y

ed3r t1.aiaa when an es tial

:or sureuary Judgemmt muier Crim»

g^,; his parole was ^^^

^ ^^ olian^ are violated by t.^^ trial

guilty or pled guilty lae would ^ sant,i_ to

Vi.olatiarz. The 14tchigan ^.'A wtified Qdo, the seriding State r^

required on 4-26-1994 as ^^ t te

c^iet3^.can in the ease.Co 1-27-1995 the appellant

Aed guilty to the felony ch&rg,sS in oaklmnd ComtY W, . i„

iupwe.ei a senteme of 2µ15 years with tt* parole ^ ^ ^ ^^ - tiora samt . t<s

y seratenoes . The

12k years on the 2-15 year sent

3r^ CUllicotoo thia and

days of reportiog daily the pdlacat m

^Cr

^ ^ppei^^ has^^^^^^ and ^^

^^^ parole revocation f,tiple

hi

+a this appellmt. He

for the parole violation resulting

. . everything hz can tes ec^mply wa

arsd properly transfered his Wcrle

parole violation . tiw In Hichi.

:^ ^ain

,^^^^ chars

*es

iv,fully se . d, ^^

t7hiaa vics:

to get the problem correetec,3 he is still

any ^ ^^^h.'^^

^f ter

and despite mdtiple attenipts

he . ].lant seeks this Gstrrt to exercise it's discraLion and

a message to thot ^ ^ ^ to pr . ec'ly ,

ly for all Una citizens of this Stata rhit co

tasYly this Court shcauld

. : .riase of aus.

of the US oonstituMn and the 'v,

D s

(^J

rly a ed 3:t' s disovetiOn in

to c _ n .

s;rs 1994 tne a

^ result of . felonies while on parole.

Chio APA ^ias nat^^fied on 4-25-1994 of the ne

violaticn hs^ took no wt^

violation. The Court swt ..

the parole sanata.em sen^^

on his

total of 2-1b years S 'req

arrs=itivs7.y. Af ^ servin^

n lw md ww . e3 f

y b4d no papervmrk on tam a

WmM

i hfao to

;ar 7 visit$

$ the ^ ^ ^ ellaut was r ter3 for a parsle, violation

his parole in H3,ehige^^ was violated frv- and he

iy sse v d t. m for '

Ilarst was prmised that -mis

^ oira : of mmsel at his in^:i^

no ev3dome

for the exaot so.^ rsasc^ his parole : w

told the APA

mkiM this claim is^ open ^ t the

the APA c3:aimi^ he saw no gemdm issl

e 1.y appea to this cour

pift-" 395 U.S. 711 (1969)t

t5d d

(7)

clea.r and Morsvincing proof of this faet in the fo

senieneing entry< both the Michigan and Ohio pero2e vzoh

vez'baGs'an sentencing transcri.pta The APA and tho- Courts have consista

the proof offered. The txtal caaiirt, after speeifical3.y admitting

Michigan

Y

in the appellant's double jeopardy claim, See T,p of hearing P. 12-17, for sase

eual€ndwn reason, r€ and granted S wry Judgement in favor of the

Respondent claiming "No genu9.ne. iseUe°'. The 12th Distera.ct Court of Appeals igraatad

the Claim by denying the appellant relief based on the imnrreat preaurapticrri that

ppellaaat sought a' an3ngf?a7, parole hearing9° 9 this claim or request that the

hal never made or requested. The goal of this Mandamus ao.tlon was a3:ways

A to hold a hearing on t'he Double Jeopardy alaira and the regul

idictior

.dence presented clearly shows

lutve been violated a:nd t:1e appellant respectfully requests this Court to su

b3,s first proposition of law anei. accept jurisdiction of tl'tis case to arlswOr

constitutional qeae:stiora of whether two State's APA' s can both violate and pun.i.sh

a Wolee for the same epndu.ct and the aame

ans,orered by tkzi.s Court in any other case,

d3POSMt3N OF TRW

for Summry Judgeraent.

CE}M1' VIOI.A"£ES 'I'HE A;£''PELL1WDUE :E'R(1a55 t3F imAAW GUARANTEED

es

as a ma.tter of law in, granting the Respondent' s motion

issa.ee was raised and fully briefed in the appellant's

(8)

Ifais question kias never been

HAT IT SEES HMn IN THE RA THE . . ..TCiG OF S U Y .iUDGD!i'x:FT9F:NF ZN FAVOR OF T[^ f3E,^'sPON"UF

appeal to the 12th District Court of Avpmls, the Appes.lu COurt simaly lgnored

the claim atnd did not address it at sl1,

tel:s.tor-eppellant requested a"Meartingfu7. parole hesrinW' his appeal was denied.

never made such a reqmst,

the criteria for Civ R. 56(c) in T'9.e v Wean (1977)

2d. 317 stating that undem 56(c), before S. mry ,Tudgemwt may be

der.e .̂rmir

No genuine

It anpear

any mate

rty is entitled to.7 egient as ematte•r of law; «nd

cow-lus3.on, and viewiM such ev3.deme ataost strOnin favor of the party against v the motion faxis made. that conclusion is adverse to the party.

None of these requira

,rs County CaFzion Pleas Court. Aside irc

a matter of law,

:ed it, Forma k'aupe-ris whicta woxzld not have teen spPs:opti

on had no mw3;t or genuine i.ssue. 'iAe Court during a hearing

eondmtet on 4-14-2010 spec:3,fical1y told those in the Courtroom that he saw

tneait in the Re3.ator °s claim of double jeopardy and ws:

request. Thus per this statemnt the reqaairmixot set forth

. one of the cr

Res

:espanden uit°iaa-ry 3udga

in

:i.ve about this at thea matter of law. The Court s.sk^^

s given. As such the Respondent was not entitled to

n me to but oneevt

my

;rent the Relator `;

i1y filed 6 different defs.zases to ;

summaW .3udgesaxatt as a nmtter of law as required.

As to the third recqca3.r C that the aar3.d4

any I*bt ^

rawonable m

of StttarAty J

Y

to

d:

.^ht°s ".r

1;d

e ffri.. . d in a light

,b3:e to , e ^^to^^ IY

vi^^ted twirA for

rules of pr '- a^ developed by

As such ant res^^^fu7.ly requests this Co-ttrt to

(10)

sustain his

caunty court Of c

Posr8^"Stxq OF I

y way to eAt the APA to ques

y

ly vi.i

PA ' . llant for the

We

rf di, ^tiou

in cas 1^^^ the ease at bart `arm^s not

68 oao

siAbo

t ..k Fai^^^ ^^arl;y sta. ^ ^

^51+y 4 G2

s co

hus never ^^^ Y

ab2

^ asking

626 N.U^ 2c3, 67.

455, 36+`'+ N.E.

'A. t da

;tt#:p1e pu

him for the ftcorid tim an the extet ^^^ clUr: " h* . s P^ uSLY vev

°sar iti Mich3gan of whieh he had alra^ served ttte Sas^^im

p^ism> Ibi^ ^ ^ r viralationcs:

'ple puSa3

ant never requ^terl a h^^^M to determine if he in fa^t was e1ible for

k His reqtmst was specifically for a ing to determine the APA'^ ^bt

^ te `¢iins af ter t^ had bew ^aoet3,cn for the s.. offenses in Mi ,. ,

se law atted bt th- 12th District Cmwt of Appmls would be p "r id,

Lant i^ OnLy r

s discrotion by reµ^

violation ai

a r'4PA and Qmlity Asa,

two ye

ant

z.ng for the sale. p.

ly d strated that

dersW a rvtariog

a violation toi

t by >+

(12)

Court $t

this ^ as ^t imrol s several a^stitu

answend by this G :. ^ to ezasue^^ that t the .. rm^^ ^ ^ e 0

to this ^ ^ lant nWer O r$ to any m else.

c.ERT^FIcATE OF SERVzcE

I, Charle.s Boswell,

foregoing motion was sent to appra

2nd day of March, 2011.

I by first c1as US ovil aa^

Dv,aQ_ &-^

(14)

llCOURT OF APPEALS

WARREN COUNTYIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ^! L E D

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO aAN 3 j201^ey^ g^, Clerk

WARREN COUNTY ^^

LEBANON OHIO

STATE EX REL. CHARLES BOSWELL,

Relator-Appellant,

- vs -

ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY,

Respondent-Appellee.

CASE NO. CA2010-08-081

JUDGMENT ENTRY(Accelerated Calendar)

CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEASCase No. 09 CV 75867

{11} This cause is an accelerated appeal in which relator-appellant, Charles

Boswell, appeals the decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas denying

his writ of mandamus and granting summary judgment to respondent-appellee, the

Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA).'

{112} Appellant's assignments of error, both dealing with the trial court's

decision denying his request to compel the OAPA to conduct a "meaningful" parole

hearing, are overruled. As this court has proVl.n,:.iSly ctate^ "^f^i'e decl8l.^.n t0 prOVide

a parole hearing under R.C. 2967.03 is not obligatory, but rather discretionary on the

part of the OAPA. A writ of mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of this

discretion on the part of the OAPA." ( Internal citations omitted.) State ex rel.

1. Pursuant to Loc.R. 6(A), we have sua sponte assigned this appeal to the accelerated calendar.

* M C 0 2 5 2 0 1 0 0 8 0 8 1*

Warren CA2010-08-081 I

McCuller v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 123 Ohio App.3d 425, 428; State ex rel.

Smith v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. No. 02AP-93, 2003-Ohio-754,

¶23; State ex rel. Thompson v. Clark (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 191, paragraph one and

two of the syllabus; see, also, R.C. 2967.15(B) (OAPA not required to grant "a

hearing if the person is convicted of or pleads guilty to an offense that the person

committed while released on a pardon, on parole, or another form of release, or on

post-release control and upon which the revocation of the person's pardon, parole,

other release, or post-release control is based"). In turn, because the OAPA's

decision to grant a hearing to appellant is discretionary, the trial court did not err by

denying appellant's writ of mandamus and granting summary judgment to the OAPA.

{¶3} Judgment affirmed.

{114} Pursuant to App.R. 11.1(E), this entry shall not be relied upon as

authority and will not be published in any form. A certified copy of this Judgment

Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

{15} Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.

iding Judge

Robert A. Hendrickson, Judge

-2-