State ex rel. Lipschutz v. Shoemaker, Director, Adult Parole Authority

In this action, Lipschutz seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent to conduct another parole hearing. He claims that, since he was convicted of only one count of murder, the Parole Board should not have treated him as having committed two murders. Because we find no clear legal duty on the Parole Board’s part to disregard crimes not resulting in conviction, we deny the writ in this respect.

Ohio Adm. Code 5120:1-1-08(K) provides:

“In making any [parole] determination under Rule 5120:1-1-07 of the Administrative Code, the parole board may take into consideration * * * (K) The nature of the…