The Supreme Court of Ohio recently upheld an appellate court dismissal of a Marion Correctional Institution inmate’s effort to order the state Adult Parole Authority to cease future parole hearings on his behalf.

Justices noted that the Tenth District appellate panel dismissed 55-year-old James Ellis’ complaint on the basis that the man, convicted in 1995 on charges of aggravated murder and aggravated burglary, failed to prove the parole authority lacked jurisdiction or acted on erroneous information in scheduling such a hearing.

“Ellis asks us to prohibit action that the law permits and to use an extraordinary writ of prohibition to order the parole authority to act,” the high court wrote per curiam.

According to case background, Ellis was sentenced to life in prison for the aggravated murder charge and a consecutive sentence of 10 to 25 years for the aggravated burglary charge.

The sentencing entry did not mention parole eligibility, summary noted.

In 2018, the Bureau of Sentence Computation notified Ellis that, although his life sentence would make him eligible for parole after serving 20 years, his sentence of 10 to 25 years for aggravated burglary added 10 years before parole eligibility.

The bureau indicated at the time that the paroled authority would schedule a parole hearing for April 2025.

In a complaint seeking a writ of prohibition, Ellis argued that the parole authority had effectively changed his sentence from “life” to “20 years to life” and that such a modification was a judicial function outside the parole authority’s jurisdiction, summary continued.

Additionally, he asked the court to direct the parole authority to contact the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court to correct the sentence.

The Tenth District subsequently dismissed the complaint, holding that the parole authority has jurisdiction to conduct proceedings concerning duly convicted parole-eligible inmates.

“Ellis argues that his sentencing order said nothing about parole eligibility,” justices wrote. “He argues that changing his sentence from life (with parole eligibility not specified) to life with parole eligibility after 20 years exceeds the authority of the parole authority. So Ellis wants the court to prevent the parole authority from holding another hearing … and require the parole authority to first ask the sentencing court to correct his sentence.”

The justices noted that Ellis is correct — that the sentencing entry does not mention his parole eligibility.

“But Ellis’s parole eligibility is determined by operation of statute,” the decision continued. “Ellis was found not guilty of the specifications charged in the indictment, so under the law at the time of his sentencing, he would receive life imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving 20 years. Had the sentencing entry contradicted this statute, the sentence might have been contrary to law and beyond the power of the parole authority to correct.”

That was not the case, however, justices wrote.

“Rather, the judge simply did not specify whether Ellis was parole eligible,” the decision continued. “Therefore, the parole authority will not exceed its authority by holding a hearing.”

Regarding his request that the court issue a writ ordering the parole authority to contact the sentencing court for a correcting order, justices reasoned that Ellis presented no reason to support use of such a writ and denied the request.