The Supreme Court of Ohio today rejected a prison inmate’s claim that he should be released because his death sentences were commuted to life without the possibility of parole, a form of a life sentence that did not exist at the time he committed the crimes.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court explained that a governor’s power of clemency, which reduces a maximum sentence, is not reviewable by a court. The 2011 commutation of Shawn L. Hawkins’ death sentences does not equate with a court “judgment,” and as long as the sentence is constitutional, a court cannot overturn it, the opinion stated.

The Court affirmed a ruling of the Third District Court of Appeals, which denied Hawkins’ request for a writ of habeas corpus. He maintained his commuted sentence was void because Ohio law at the time he was convicted did not authorize a punishment of life without the possibility of parole.

In his request to the Supreme Court, Hawkins sought his release or a revision of his commuted sentence that would make him eligible for parole.

Inmate Seeks To Be Freed
In 1990, Hawkins was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of four counts of aggravated murder with death specifications and two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications. His crimes were committed in 1989.

He was sentenced to death for each murder conviction. He received 10- to 25-year prison sentences for each aggravated robbery, and two 3-year mandatory prison terms for each firearm specification. He appealed, and his sentence was affirmed in 1991.

Hawkins sought commutation of his death sentences. At the recommendation of the Ohio Parole Board, former Gov. John Kasich commuted his sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In 2023, Hawkins sought a modification of his jail-time credit for the time he was incarcerated locally before being sent to prison. A Hamilton County judge granted 141 days of credit, while noting the governor had commuted Hawkins’ sentence to life without the possibility of parole.

While serving his sentence in Marion Correctional Institution, Hawkins sought a writ of habeas corpus in 2024, arguing he was entitled to immediate release because the governor lacked the authority to commute his sentence to life without parole. He also alleged the trial judge “vacated the former sentences,” both the death sentences and the commuted sentence, and failed to reimpose them when granting jail-time credit.

The appeals court denied the request, and Hawkins appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Commutation Authority
The opinion explains that a writ of habeas corpus is generally granted when an inmate’s maximum sentence has expired or the offender is being unlawfully held. Hawkins’ core argument is that the governor lacked the authority to transform his sentence to life without the possibility of parole.

The opinion noted that in 1989, when Hawkins’ crimes occurred, the possible sentences for aggravated murder were death, life with parole eligibility after serving 20 years, and life with parole eligibility after serving 30 years.

Hawkins maintained he was challenging the trial court’s power to impose a sentence that did not exist at the time. However, the Court noted Hawkins does not argue about the authority of a trial court, but “appears to equate the governor’s commutation of his death sentence with the act of a sentencing court.”

Under Article III, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution, the governor has the power of clemency, which includes the power to commute sentences, the opinion noted.

“The governor’s clemency power is not subject to legislative or judicial interference,” the opinion stated.

Commutation is the “substitution” of a lesser sentence than the original punishment. The governor’s issuance of a lesser punishment does not create a new “judgment” that can be challenged in court, the opinion stated. Hawkins attempted to use an option available to challenge court judgments to contest the unreviewable acts of the governor, the Court wrote.

Hawkins also claimed the commutation violated the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws. The Court wrote the clause prohibits “enactments of law” that retroactively increase punishment for criminal acts. He maintains the governor “increased” the punishment for aggravated murder from life in prison with eligibility for parole to life without eligibility for parole.

The Court noted commutation is not a change of law, but a modification of sentencing, and is not impacted by the prohibition on ex post facto laws. Also, the governor did not increase his sentence.

“The governor commuted Hawkins’ death sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This is a lesser punishment than the death penalty,” the opinion stated.

2024-1761. State ex rel. Hawkins v. Frederick, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4540.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.