Preview
E1935 - D49 e @
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
KEVIN M. STEWART Case n.3 cy H 09 - 991 2
614-069, pro se
Madison Corr. Inst.
1851 St.Rt. 56
London,Oh, 43140 Honorable
Judge
Plaintiff,
vs. MOTION FOR DECLATORY JUDGMENT
and/or INJUNCTIONAL RELIEF
GARY MOHNR, (Director,D.R.C.)
770 West Broad Strect
Columbus,Oh, 43222
COVER PAGE
This Honorable Court has jurisdiction of this matter because
the Respondent's Domocile is physically located within this Court's
jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdcition under
Ohio Revised Code of Law Sections 2721 and 2305.01.
MOTION FOR DECLATORY JUDGMENT and/or INJUNCTIONAL RELIEF.... p. 1-3
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT p. 4-6
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS pe 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE stated at the bottom of p. 3
SLYNOD 40 YUN
WHE Hd S- daS E102E1935
~ D50 e ®
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
KEVIN M. STEWART, Case No,
Plaintiff,
Honorable
vs. Judge
GARY MOHR, MOTION FOR DECLATORY JUDGMENT
{Director of D.R.C.) and/or INJUNCTIONAL RELIEF
R.C. §2305.01
Respondent,
Comes now Plaintiff KEVIN M. STEWART, pro se, inmate of the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections under the auth-
ority and supervision of Mr. Gary Mohr-Respondent, and hereby
respectfully ask this Honorable Court and the State of Ohio to
Grant him a Declatory Judgment and/or Injunctional Relief by up-
holding Ohio Revised Code of Law and the rulings of the Fifth
District Court of Appeals and the Delaware Common Please Court
which are in accordance to the General Assembly's amendment of
House Bill 86 inacted September 30,2011, specifically addressing
the changes in penalties or punishments or beneifits that may be
applied to an offender.
Plaintiff Stewart, is eligible to receive five -5- earned credit
days per month for participation in an educational program-while
serving his term of imprisonment, providing he does not violate
any eligihility criteria such as bad conduct or failing to complete
the educational program. The earned credit days applies to all off-
enders in Ohio that are sentenced on or after September 30,2011,
in accordance to H.B. 86.E1935 ~ D51 e @
Plaintiff Stewart, was originally sentenced on September 30,
2011, in the Delaware County Common Pleas Court, and re-sentenced
per remand of the Fifth District Court of Appeals to the Delaware
County Common Pleas Court on appeal regarding the issue Stewart
should have been sentenced under the amendment of H.B. 86, as
mandated or in accordance with R.C. 1.58, which sets forth;
:1f the penalty,forfetiture,or punishment for any offense, if
reduced by an amendment...if not already imposed, shall be
imposed according to the statutue.:.
The D.R.C. computezrecords shows Plaintif€ Stewart, is under
Senate Bill 2 and NOT under House Bill 86, and thus is depriving
or preventing him of receiving the -5- earned credit days he is
eligible to receive for participation in the educational program
he is attending.
Plaintiff Stewart, has addressed this matter to the D.R.C. and
respectfully litigated this issue, to no avail. See attached.
This Honorable Court has jurisdiction in this matter in accor-
dance to R.C. §§2721, 2305.01, and because the Staté!s Central .Off-
ice for the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections under the
Direction and Supervision of Respondent Gary Mohr, is located within
this Court's jurisdiction,
Plaintiff Stewart, has set forth more detailed facts and docum-
entation supporting his Motion in the Memorandum In Support attached.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Stewart hereby prays this Court and the
State of Ohio, to Grant him a Declatory Judgment and/or Injunctional
Relief by Ruling that as the record of the Courts of Ohio has ruledE1935 ~ D52 e e
Stewart is sentenced under House Bill 86 and thus is eligible
to the amendment of the statute, and Respondent Should direct his
Office to conform to the guidelines of Ohio Revised Code and the
amendments enacted upon it's statutes, preserving Stewart's rights
under the Equal Protections Clause(s) of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Constitutions Due Process
Clause(s), and apply the five -5- earned credit days per month be
deducted from the expiration date of Stewart's sentence, as the
Court would deem appropriate.
STATE OF OHIO ) Respect, Submitted
) ss
COUNTY OF MADISON ) by
KEYIN M. STEWART
Sworn a Subscribed in my presence 674-069, ~pro se~
this ay of August, 2013 Madison Corr. Inst.
. 1851 St.Rt. 56
Notary Public P.O. Box 740
—_——
A London, Ohio, 43140
oud. B (Upavies
my commission expires: Qyeouboe3, 2"
Certificate of Service
I, hereby verify that I have placed the foregoing in the u.S.
Mail with adequate postage hereon and addressed to The Office of
the Clerk of Courts for Franklin County,Ohio at 373 S.High St.,
23rd Fl., Columbus,Ohio,43215, for filing. I respectfully ask the
Clerk's Office to return a date~stamped-filed copy to me for my
records. Thank You.
This 20th day of August, 2013 lly Submitted,
VIN NM. STEWART
614-069,E1935 ~ D53 @ @
MEMORANDUM: IN;-SUPPORT
Plaintiff was sentenced on September 30, 2011, by the Delaware
County Common Pleas Court, to serve a term of imprisonment in the
Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections of Ohio, by virtue of
a jury's verdict of guilty to possession of drugs. Later the Fifth
District Court of Appeals remanded the Delaware County Common Pleas
Court to re-sentence Stewart because the Trial Court had imposed
a sentence contrary to law, in that in accordance to R.C. 1.58,
if the offender had not already been sentenced when the amendment
of the statutue went into effect, the court must sentence the off~
ender according to the amended statute.
The Trial Court's Judgment Entry sets forth on p.3 the provis—
ions of Sections 2929.19 and 2967.193(A)(1) of the O.R.C., that
: A person confined in a state correctional institution may
provisionally earn one or five days of credit, based on pro~
gram and activity completion..., toward satifaction of the
person's stated prison term for each month during which the
person productively participates in an education program...:
Stewart addressed the Office of the D.R.C. and received the
notice that :it doesn't matter when you were sentenced it matters
when you committed the crime.:. and was denied receiving the days
earned credit. Stewart has respectfully litigated this issue with
the Office of the D.R.C. stating that the State is failing to pro-
perly train it's employees with misinterpretation of the statute
as the case managers at the D.R.C.'s Facilities are ALL enforcing
or standing on this belief, as they are trained to do, which dir-
ectly lies on the policy of the D.R.C. and thus does liability of
deprivations of the Equal Protections Clause(s) of each offender
and in this instance KEVIN M. STEWART.E1935,~ D54 @ @
Upon the 20th day of August, 2013, Stewart received corres-—
pondence back from Sue Steadman, BOSCO (DRC), reiterating what
she is trained on this matter, and included copy of the A.R.,
5120-2-06, Earned credit for productive program participation,
Set forth at Section (I); :inmates earning credit pursuant to
this rule sentenced under liouse Bill 86 of the 129th General
Assembly for an offense committed on or after September 30, 2011,
may earn one day or five days of credit per month...:;
Thus, Stewart is not challenging the DRC's employee's stand
nor their descretion in the matter. The challenge is being brought
to the listing and implementation of the General Assembly's ruling
and intentions of the amendment. This is a simply error of inter-
pretation of the amendment to the statute.
The error in wording is : for an offense commited on or after
September 30,2011:. It has been held in Ohio rulings and Law, by
R.C. 1.58, sif not already sentenced:.
Should Stewart be denied his petition for correction in his
instance, and pursue venue to the Ohio Supreme Court, the concern
of this Court, being a member of the Ohio legal system, may be the
possibility Stewart succeeds in the S.Ct. and thus the ruling become
a bright-line rule, and the effect of poisonous fruit similiarity
spread to multitudes of inmates congesting the courts with filings
and even suits by the person(s) whom completed their sentences and
should have had their sentences reduced by an X amount of days,
however due to the interpretation of the amendment actually served
those days in prison and pursuing compensative petitions to the
Court of Claims for those days served that should have been dedu-
cted from their expiration of sentence date.
5.E1935 - D55 e@ @
Stewart seeks relief from the policy which the D.R.C. (Resp-
ondent Mohr), is implementing or enforcing that is depriving
Stewart the credit for the earned days he has acheived as set
forth by Ohio Revised Code and the Judgment Entry of the Delaware
County Court.
This Court is ask to apply the Ohio Revised Code of Law to the
case matter sub judice and exercise it's jurisdiction on this
Matter and give Notice to the Office of D.R.C.'s Director Gary
Mohr, to review the applications supra, and implement an amendment
to the D.R.C.'s policy in training it's employees to adapt the
true or correct interpretation of the O.R.C. and the intentions of
the Ohio General Assembly, thus granting Stewart the -5- earned
credit days per month for the months he has successfully partici-
pated in the educational program he is participating in at the
Madison Correctinal Institution, as the Court would deem appropriate,
This 20th day of August, 2013
Res liy Submitted,
by KEVIN HAEL STEWART
614-069, pro se
Madison Corr. Inst.
1851 St.Rt. 56
P.O. Box 740
London,Oh, 43140
Preview
E1935 - D49 e @ IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO KEVIN M. STEWART Case n.3 cy H 09 - 991 2 614-069, pro se Madison Corr. Inst. 1851 St.Rt. 56 London,Oh, 43140 Honorable Judge Plaintiff, vs. MOTION FOR DECLATORY JUDGMENT and/or INJUNCTIONAL RELIEF GARY MOHNR, (Director,D.R.C.) 770 West Broad Strect Columbus,Oh, 43222 COVER PAGE This Honorable Court has jurisdiction of this matter because the Respondent's Domocile is physically located within this Court's jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdcition under Ohio Revised Code of Law Sections 2721 and 2305.01. MOTION FOR DECLATORY JUDGMENT and/or INJUNCTIONAL RELIEF.... p. 1-3 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT p. 4-6 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS pe 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE stated at the bottom of p. 3 SLYNOD 40 YUN WHE Hd S- daS E102E1935 ~ D50 e ® IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO KEVIN M. STEWART, Case No, Plaintiff, Honorable vs. Judge GARY MOHR, MOTION FOR DECLATORY JUDGMENT {Director of D.R.C.) and/or INJUNCTIONAL RELIEF R.C. §2305.01 Respondent, Comes now Plaintiff KEVIN M. STEWART, pro se, inmate of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections under the auth- ority and supervision of Mr. Gary Mohr-Respondent, and hereby respectfully ask this Honorable Court and the State of Ohio to Grant him a Declatory Judgment and/or Injunctional Relief by up- holding Ohio Revised Code of Law and the rulings of the Fifth District Court of Appeals and the Delaware Common Please Court which are in accordance to the General Assembly's amendment of House Bill 86 inacted September 30,2011, specifically addressing the changes in penalties or punishments or beneifits that may be applied to an offender. Plaintiff Stewart, is eligible to receive five -5- earned credit days per month for participation in an educational program-while serving his term of imprisonment, providing he does not violate any eligihility criteria such as bad conduct or failing to complete the educational program. The earned credit days applies to all off- enders in Ohio that are sentenced on or after September 30,2011, in accordance to H.B. 86.E1935 ~ D51 e @ Plaintiff Stewart, was originally sentenced on September 30, 2011, in the Delaware County Common Pleas Court, and re-sentenced per remand of the Fifth District Court of Appeals to the Delaware County Common Pleas Court on appeal regarding the issue Stewart should have been sentenced under the amendment of H.B. 86, as mandated or in accordance with R.C. 1.58, which sets forth; :1f the penalty,forfetiture,or punishment for any offense, if reduced by an amendment...if not already imposed, shall be imposed according to the statutue.:. The D.R.C. computezrecords shows Plaintif€ Stewart, is under Senate Bill 2 and NOT under House Bill 86, and thus is depriving or preventing him of receiving the -5- earned credit days he is eligible to receive for participation in the educational program he is attending. Plaintiff Stewart, has addressed this matter to the D.R.C. and respectfully litigated this issue, to no avail. See attached. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction in this matter in accor- dance to R.C. §§2721, 2305.01, and because the Staté!s Central .Off- ice for the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections under the Direction and Supervision of Respondent Gary Mohr, is located within this Court's jurisdiction, Plaintiff Stewart, has set forth more detailed facts and docum- entation supporting his Motion in the Memorandum In Support attached. Wherefore, Plaintiff Stewart hereby prays this Court and the State of Ohio, to Grant him a Declatory Judgment and/or Injunctional Relief by Ruling that as the record of the Courts of Ohio has ruledE1935 ~ D52 e e Stewart is sentenced under House Bill 86 and thus is eligible to the amendment of the statute, and Respondent Should direct his Office to conform to the guidelines of Ohio Revised Code and the amendments enacted upon it's statutes, preserving Stewart's rights under the Equal Protections Clause(s) of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Constitutions Due Process Clause(s), and apply the five -5- earned credit days per month be deducted from the expiration date of Stewart's sentence, as the Court would deem appropriate. STATE OF OHIO ) Respect, Submitted ) ss COUNTY OF MADISON ) by KEYIN M. STEWART Sworn a Subscribed in my presence 674-069, ~pro se~ this ay of August, 2013 Madison Corr. Inst. . 1851 St.Rt. 56 Notary Public P.O. Box 740 —_—— A London, Ohio, 43140 oud. B (Upavies my commission expires: Qyeouboe3, 2" Certificate of Service I, hereby verify that I have placed the foregoing in the u.S. Mail with adequate postage hereon and addressed to The Office of the Clerk of Courts for Franklin County,Ohio at 373 S.High St., 23rd Fl., Columbus,Ohio,43215, for filing. I respectfully ask the Clerk's Office to return a date~stamped-filed copy to me for my records. Thank You. This 20th day of August, 2013 lly Submitted, VIN NM. STEWART 614-069,E1935 ~ D53 @ @ MEMORANDUM: IN;-SUPPORT Plaintiff was sentenced on September 30, 2011, by the Delaware County Common Pleas Court, to serve a term of imprisonment in the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections of Ohio, by virtue of a jury's verdict of guilty to possession of drugs. Later the Fifth District Court of Appeals remanded the Delaware County Common Pleas Court to re-sentence Stewart because the Trial Court had imposed a sentence contrary to law, in that in accordance to R.C. 1.58, if the offender had not already been sentenced when the amendment of the statutue went into effect, the court must sentence the off~ ender according to the amended statute. The Trial Court's Judgment Entry sets forth on p.3 the provis— ions of Sections 2929.19 and 2967.193(A)(1) of the O.R.C., that : A person confined in a state correctional institution may provisionally earn one or five days of credit, based on pro~ gram and activity completion..., toward satifaction of the person's stated prison term for each month during which the person productively participates in an education program...: Stewart addressed the Office of the D.R.C. and received the notice that :it doesn't matter when you were sentenced it matters when you committed the crime.:. and was denied receiving the days earned credit. Stewart has respectfully litigated this issue with the Office of the D.R.C. stating that the State is failing to pro- perly train it's employees with misinterpretation of the statute as the case managers at the D.R.C.'s Facilities are ALL enforcing or standing on this belief, as they are trained to do, which dir- ectly lies on the policy of the D.R.C. and thus does liability of deprivations of the Equal Protections Clause(s) of each offender and in this instance KEVIN M. STEWART.E1935,~ D54 @ @ Upon the 20th day of August, 2013, Stewart received corres-— pondence back from Sue Steadman, BOSCO (DRC), reiterating what she is trained on this matter, and included copy of the A.R., 5120-2-06, Earned credit for productive program participation, Set forth at Section (I); :inmates earning credit pursuant to this rule sentenced under liouse Bill 86 of the 129th General Assembly for an offense committed on or after September 30, 2011, may earn one day or five days of credit per month...:; Thus, Stewart is not challenging the DRC's employee's stand nor their descretion in the matter. The challenge is being brought to the listing and implementation of the General Assembly's ruling and intentions of the amendment. This is a simply error of inter- pretation of the amendment to the statute. The error in wording is : for an offense commited on or after September 30,2011:. It has been held in Ohio rulings and Law, by R.C. 1.58, sif not already sentenced:. Should Stewart be denied his petition for correction in his instance, and pursue venue to the Ohio Supreme Court, the concern of this Court, being a member of the Ohio legal system, may be the possibility Stewart succeeds in the S.Ct. and thus the ruling become a bright-line rule, and the effect of poisonous fruit similiarity spread to multitudes of inmates congesting the courts with filings and even suits by the person(s) whom completed their sentences and should have had their sentences reduced by an X amount of days, however due to the interpretation of the amendment actually served those days in prison and pursuing compensative petitions to the Court of Claims for those days served that should have been dedu- cted from their expiration of sentence date. 5.E1935 - D55 e@ @ Stewart seeks relief from the policy which the D.R.C. (Resp- ondent Mohr), is implementing or enforcing that is depriving Stewart the credit for the earned days he has acheived as set forth by Ohio Revised Code and the Judgment Entry of the Delaware County Court. This Court is ask to apply the Ohio Revised Code of Law to the case matter sub judice and exercise it's jurisdiction on this Matter and give Notice to the Office of D.R.C.'s Director Gary Mohr, to review the applications supra, and implement an amendment to the D.R.C.'s policy in training it's employees to adapt the true or correct interpretation of the O.R.C. and the intentions of the Ohio General Assembly, thus granting Stewart the -5- earned credit days per month for the months he has successfully partici- pated in the educational program he is participating in at the Madison Correctinal Institution, as the Court would deem appropriate, This 20th day of August, 2013 Res liy Submitted, by KEVIN HAEL STEWART 614-069, pro se Madison Corr. Inst. 1851 St.Rt. 56 P.O. Box 740 London,Oh, 43140