State ex rel. Vaughn v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Vaughn asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action. For the following reasons, Vaughn’s assertion lacks merit.

Initially, because Vaughn has no constitutional or statutory right to parole, he has no similar right to earlier consideration of parole. State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 267, 268, 690 N.E.2d 887, 888. As the court of appeals correctly observed, “[t]he APA’s use of internal guidelines does not alter the discretionary nature of the parole decision, because neither statute nor…