Simmons v. Black (Slip Opinion) , 2022 Ohio 352 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
    Simmons v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 
    2022-Ohio-352
    .]
    NOTICE
    This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
    advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
    promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
    South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
    formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
    the opinion is published.
    SLIP OPINION NO. 
    2022-OHIO-352
    SIMMONS v. BLACK, WARDEN.
    [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
    may be cited as Simmons v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 
    2022-Ohio-352
    .]
    Habeas corpus—Petitioner failed to state a valid claim for relief in habeas—Writ
    denied.
    (No. 2021-1146—Submitted October 26, 2021—Decided February 10, 2022.)
    IN HABEAS CORPUS.
    __________________
    Per Curiam.
    {¶ 1} Petitioner, Willie Simmons, seeks a writ of habeas corpus ordering
    his release from the Lorain Correctional Institution, where respondent, Jennifer
    Gillece Black, is the warden. We deny the writ.
    I. Factual and Procedural Background
    A. Allegations in Simmons’s Petition
    {¶ 2} Simmons was convicted of sexual battery and gross sexual imposition
    in 2009 and sentenced to three years and six months in prison. The judgment entry
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    of conviction states that Simmons “was advised that he is subject to five (5) years
    post release control pursuant to ORC § 2967.28.” Simmons completed his sentence
    and was released from prison on September 12, 2012.
    {¶ 3} On June 25, 2021, the Adult Parole Authority (“APA”) took Simmons
    into custody for allegedly violating the terms of his postrelease control. On July
    29, the APA found that Simmons had committed the alleged violation and imposed
    a prison term of 115 days. Simmons commenced this action on September 10,
    seeking his release by claiming that the APA lacks authority to imprison him for
    violating the terms of his postrelease control. We ordered a return of writ. 
    164 Ohio St.3d 1444
    , 
    2021-Ohio-3367
    , 
    173 N.E.3d 1234
    .
    B. Black’s Return of Writ
    {¶ 4} Black timely filed her return on October 15 and provided the
    following facts and documentation that Simmons did not include in his habeas
    petition.
    {¶ 5} Shortly after Simmons was released from prison in Ohio, he was
    transferred to New York for parole supervision relating to a conviction in that state.
    While in New York, Simmons was convicted of a sex offense in May 2015 and
    sentenced to three and a half years in a New York prison. Simmons served his
    sentence and was extradited to Ohio in June 2021.
    {¶ 6} When Simmons returned to Ohio, the APA held a hearing on charges
    that he violated the terms of his postrelease control imposed pursuant to his Ohio
    convictions. Due to the sex offense he committed in New York, the APA found
    that Simmons had violated the terms of his Ohio postrelease control and sentenced
    him to 115 days’ incarceration.1
    1. Simmons’s five-year period of postrelease control commenced on September 12, 2012, when he
    was released from prison in Ohio. He was not charged with a postrelease-control violation in Ohio,
    however, until June 2021. We note that Black’s return indicates that the APA declared Simmons a
    “PRC Violator in Custody” on May 21, 2015. Thus, Simmons’s postrelease-control period may not
    2
    January Term, 2022
    II. Analysis
    {¶ 7} To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must show that
    he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty and that he is entitled to immediate
    release from confinement. R.C. 2725.01; State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr, 
    155 Ohio St.3d 213
    , 
    2018-Ohio-4184
    , 
    120 N.E.3d 776
    , ¶ 10. “A writ of habeas corpus is
    generally ‘available only when the petitioner’s maximum sentence has expired and
    he is being held unlawfully.’ ” Leyman v. Bradshaw, 
    146 Ohio St.3d 522
    , 2016-
    Ohio-1093, 
    59 N.E.3d 1236
    , ¶ 8, quoting Heddleston v. Mack, 
    84 Ohio St.3d 213
    ,
    214, 
    702 N.E.2d 1198
     (1998).                   Habeas is not available to challenge a
    nonjurisdictional error when there is or was an adequate remedy in the ordinary
    course of the law. State ex rel. Walker v. Sloan, 
    147 Ohio St.3d 353
    , 2016-Ohio-
    7451, 
    65 N.E.3d 744
    , ¶ 7.
    {¶ 8} Simmons alleges that the APA lacks authority to administer
    postrelease control “when a sentencing entry does not contain all the required
    enabling statements, such as the APA will administer the PRC and that there are
    consequences for violating the conditions of PRC.” Thus, Simmons is challenging
    the validity of his imprisonment on the basis that the 2009 sentencing entry did not
    specify that the APA had the authority to impose or administer the postrelease-
    control sanction. But this argument does not state a valid claim for relief in habeas
    corpus.
    {¶ 9} In order to validly impose postrelease control, a sentencing entry must
    contain the following information: (1) whether postrelease control is discretionary
    or mandatory, (2) the duration of the postrelease-control period, and (3) a statement
    have expired by June 25, 2021, when he was extradited to Ohio. See R.C. 2967.15(C)(1) (the time
    between the date on which a releasee is declared to be a violator and the date on which he is returned
    to APA custody in Ohio does not count as part of the term of postrelease control). For his part,
    Simmons does not expressly allege the expiration of his postrelease-control period as a basis for his
    habeas claim, and he filed a waiver of the opportunity to respond to Black’s return.
    3
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    to the effect that the APA will administer the postrelease control pursuant to R.C.
    2967.28 and that any violation by the offender of the conditions of postrelease
    control will subject the offender to the consequences set forth in that statute. State
    v. Grimes, 
    151 Ohio St.3d 19
    , 
    2017-Ohio-2927
    , 
    85 N.E.3d 700
    , ¶ 1, 13. Simmons
    cites Grimes as authority for his claimed right to immediate release, alleging that
    his sentencing entry lacked the third element from Grimes.
    {¶ 10} However, we clarified the meaning of Grimes in State v. Harper,
    
    160 Ohio St.3d 480
    , 
    2020-Ohio-2913
    , 
    159 N.E.3d 248
    . In Harper, as in this case,
    the sentencing entry failed to advise the defendant of the consequences of violating
    the conditions of his release. But we rejected the notion that this defect rendered a
    sentence void; instead, we held that any error in the imposition of the postrelease-
    control sanction was an error in the exercise of jurisdiction that could have been
    corrected on appeal. Id. at ¶ 41.
    {¶ 11} Simmons claims that Harper does not bar this action, because he is
    challenging the APA’s authority to enforce the postrelease-control sanction and not
    the validity of the trial court’s sentencing entry. But this is a distinction without a
    difference.   We rejected in Harper the proposition that an omission in the
    sentencing entry voids the imposition of postrelease control. And Simmons had an
    adequate remedy by way of appeal to challenge any error in his sentencing entry.
    {¶ 12} For these reasons, Simmons is not entitled to relief in habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
    O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART,
    and BRUNNER, JJ., concur.
    _________________
    Willie Simmons, pro se.
    Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Assistant Attorney
    General, for respondent.
    4
    January Term, 2022
    _________________
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2021-1146

Citation Numbers: 2022 Ohio 352

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/10/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/10/2022