Hoskins v. Swanson ( 2011 )

[Cite as Hoskins v. Swanson, 2011-Ohio-3186.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
LANCE HOSKINS : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Petitioner : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. 2011-CA-00126
TIMOTHY SWANSON, SHERIFF :
:
Relator : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 27, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner For Relator
LEE HOSKINS PRO SE NO APPEARANCE
4500 Atlantic Blvd.
Canton, OH 44705
[Cite as Hoskins v. Swanson, 2011-Ohio-3186.]
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Petitioner, Lance Hoskins, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
alleging unlawful detention based upon his contention that his classification as a tier
three sex offender violates the separation of powers doctrine. Further, he claims his
detention is unlawful because Ohio does not have the authority to classify him as a sex
offender since the state in which he was originally convicted did not impose registration
requirements upon Petitioner. We find it unnecessary to address those claims because
Appellant has failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a habeas petition.
{¶2} A review of the Petition reveals Petitioner has failed to attach the
necessary commitment papers in compliance with R.C. 2725.04(D). The Supreme
Court has held failure to comply with this requirement is a fatal defect which cannot be
cured, “[C]ommitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the
petition. Without them, the petition is fatally defective. When a petition is presented to a
court that does not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), there is no showing of how the
commitment was procured and there is nothing before the court on which to make a
determined judgment except, of course, the bare allegations of petitioner's application.”
Bloss v. Rogers, 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 602 N.E.2d 602. See also, Boyd v. Money, 82
Ohio St.3d 388, wherein the Supreme Court held, “Habeas corpus petitioner's failure to
attach pertinent commitment papers to his petition rendered the petition fatally
defective, and petitioner's subsequent attachment of commitment papers to his post-
judgment motion did not cure the defect.” R.C. § 2725.04(D).
{¶3} Petitioner states in the Petition that “A copy of the commitment sheet
could not be attached as it would impair the efficiency of the remedy.” This conclusory
Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00126 3
statement is insufficient to excuse the waiver of the requirement to attach all
commitment papers. The Supreme Court has similarly upheld dismissal of a petition for
failing to attach commitment papers where a petitioner makes a bare assertion that the
papers could not be attached, “Even [Petitioner’s] self-serving affidavit attached to his
response to the warden's dismissal motion failed to detail specific facts to support his
contention that the [commitment papers] could not be obtained without impairing the
efficiency of the remedy.” Goudlock v. Voorhies (2008), 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 400-401,
894 N.E.2d 692, 695.
{¶4} We likewise find failure to include all pertinent entries has made a
complete understanding of the Petition impossible.
{¶5} For this reason, Petitioner’s request for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
dismissed.
By Gwin, P. J.,
Hoffman, J., and
Farmer, J., concur
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
WSG:clw 0608
[Cite as Hoskins v. Swanson, 2011-Ohio-3186.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LANCE HOSKINS :
:
Petitioner :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
TIMOTHY SWANSON, SHERIFF :
:
:
Relator : CASE NO. 2011-CA-00126
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment is
dismissed.
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER