Allen v. Muskingum Cty. Sheriff ( 2011 )

[Cite as Allen v. Muskingum Cty. Sheriff, 2011-Ohio-3325.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JOHN DALE ALLEN : JUDGES:
: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
Petitioner : Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
: CASE NO. CT11-0023
MUSKINGUM COUNTY SHERIFF :
: OPINION
Respondent :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 23, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner – Pro se: For Respondent:
JOHN DALE ALLEN NO APPEARANCE
c/o 28 N. 4th St, - SB4
Zanesville, OH 43701
2
Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0023
Delaney, J.,
{¶1} Petitioner, John Dale Allen, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus alleging unlawful detention based upon his contention that the trial court
lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner and set excessive bail. 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 (1992), 65 Ohio
St.3d 145, 602 N.E.2d 602. See also, Boyd v. Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388, 696
N.E.2d 568, 1998-Ohio-221, wherein the Supreme Court held, “Habeas corpus
petitioner's failure to attach pertinent commitment papers to his petition rendered
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} We likewise find failure to include all pertinent entries has made a
complete understanding of the Petition impossible.
3
Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0023
{¶4} For this reason, Petitioner’s request for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
denied.
{¶5} PETITION FOR WRIT DENIED.
{¶6} COSTS TO PETITIONER.
By: Delaney, J.,
Wise, P.J., and
Edwards, J. concur
____________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
____________________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
____________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
4
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JOHN DALE ALLEN : CASE NO. CT11-0023
:
Petitioner :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
MUSKINGUM COUNTY SHERIFF :
:
Respondent :
For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, Petitioner’s
Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby denied. Costs taxes to Petitioner.
______________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
______________________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
______________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS