Fears v. Cooper , 2014 Ohio 2478 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Fears v. Cooper, 2014-Ohio-2478.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
MADISON COUNTY
WILLIAM FEARS, :
Petitioner-Appellant, : CASE NO. CA2013-12-037
: OPINION
- vs - 6/9/2014
:
DEBORAH T. COOPER, Warden, :
Respondent-Appellee. :
CIVIL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CVH 20130206
William Fears, #A668-076, London Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 69, London, Ohio
43140, petitioner-appellant, pro se
Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, Thelma T. Price, 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor,
Columbus, Ohio 43215, for respondent-appellee
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Petitioner-appellant, William Fears, appeals a decision of the Madison County
Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
{¶ 2} In 2011, Fears was indicted in Hamilton County for four counts of disrupting
public service. These four counts were prosecuted through Case No. B1104238. In a
separate indictment, also in Hamilton County, the state charged Fears with two counts of
Madison CA2013-12-037
theft and eight counts of telecommunications fraud. These charges were tried through Case
No. B1106572.
{¶ 3} Fears pled not guilty, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court
found Fears guilty of all counts, and sentenced Fears to an aggregate sentence of four and a
half years in prison on Case No. B1106572. The record does not contain sentencing
information for Case No. B1104238. Fears was transferred to the London Correctional
Institution where respondent-appellee, Deborah Cooper, is the warden.
{¶ 4} In 2013, Fears filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Madison County
Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the indictments issued against him were defective and
that his convictions were void because the statutes under which he was convicted are
unconstitutional. Respondent moved to dismiss Fears' petition, arguing that (1) Fears failed
to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2725.04(D) in filing his complaint, (2) Fears could not
challenge the validity or sufficiency of his indictment via a state habeas corpus action, and (3)
Fears could not challenge the constitutionality of a statute via a state habeas corpus action.
The trial court accepted each of Respondent's arguments and dismissed Fears' petition.
Fears now appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition, raising the following assignments
of error, which we will address together for ease of discussion.
{¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE
PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT WITHOUT ANY FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION
OF LAW, WHERE THE COURT ERROR TO AFFORD THE PETITIONER AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE STATE OF OHIO PRISON/SENTENCING
COMMITMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER IS ACCEPTABLE IN ABSENT OF THE
SENTENCING COURT'S JUDGMENT ENTRY. [SIC]
{¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 2:
-2-
Madison CA2013-12-037
{¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO FOLLOW OHIO STATUTE 163.08 OF THE
OHIO REVISED CODE. THE COURT ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDER ANY OF THE
PETITIONER'S PLEADING, ACCORDING TO LAW, AND ALSO FAILED TO RULE ON THE
PETITIONER'S PLEADING, WHICH CAUSE ACTUAL SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE TO THE
PETITIONER. [SIC]
{¶ 9} Fears argues in his assignments of error that the trial court erred in dismissing
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
{¶ 10} Apart from Fears' arguments regarding the merits of his writ, the record
demonstrates that Fears failed to abide by the filing requirements set forth by the Ohio
legislature specific to an inmate filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
{¶ 11} According to R.C. 2725.04(D), "a copy of the commitment or cause of detention
of such person shall be exhibited, if it can be procured without impairing the efficiency of the
remedy; or, if the imprisonment or detention is without legal authority, such fact must
appear." In applying the foregoing provision, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the
failure to attach a prisoner's commitment papers to his habeas corpus petition is a fatal
defect that warrants the dismissal of the petition. Hawkins v. Southern Ohio Corr. Facility,
102 Ohio St.3d 299, 2004-Ohio-2893; State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul, 81 Ohio St.3d 193(1998). The rationale for holding such is that, unless the commitment papers are attached to
the petition, a full understanding of the nature of the claim for relief is not possible. Boyd v.
Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388 (1998). The Supreme Court has further held that attachment of
the commitment papers to a subsequent pleading is insufficient to cure this particular defect.
State ex rel. Bray v. Brigano, 93 Ohio St.3d 458 (2001); Cornell v. Schotten, 69 Ohio St.3d
466 (1994).
{¶ 12} The record demonstrates that Fears attached a copy of his commitment papers
for case number B1106572, but did not attach a sentencing entry for case B1104238 to his
-3-
Madison CA2013-12-037
petition. Therefore, he has failed to provide the court a way to accurately determine the
length of his sentence, as well as when those sentences began.
{¶ 13} Fears did not argue that attaching a copy of his second commitment papers
would interfere with the remedy, nor did he offer any explanation to the trial court why his
petition was not properly supported. Having found that Fears failed to attach all of his
commitment papers to the petition he filed, the petition was fatally defective and properly
dismissed.
{¶ 14} Even if Fears had properly filed his commitment papers for Case No.
B1104238, his petition was properly denied. As previously stated, Fears argued that his
petition should have been granted because the indictments against him were defective and
because the statutes under which he was convicted were unconstitutional. However, a writ of
habeas corpus is an improper method for raising either of these challenges.
{¶ 15} "A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy available where there is an
unlawful restraint of a person's liberty and no adequate remedy at law." Jordan v. Johnson,
12th Dist. Madison No. CA2013-03-007, 2013-Ohio-3679, ¶ 12. "Habeas corpus is generally
appropriate in the criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from
prison." Id., citing Larsen v. State, 92 Ohio St.3d 69 (2001).
{¶ 16} The Ohio Supreme Court has specifically held that "habeas corpus is not
available to challenge either the validity * * * or the sufficiency of an indictment" because an
adequate remedy exists by direct appeal to raise these contentions. Luna v. Russell, 70
Ohio St.3d 561, 562 (1994); McGee v. Sheldon, 132 Ohio St.3d 89, 2012-Ohio-2217.
Therefore, the trial court properly denied Fears' petition because such was not the proper
method for challenging the sufficiency of his indictment.
{¶ 17} Similarly, in regard to Fears' constitutional challenge, the Ohio Supreme Court
has explained that state habeas corpus actions are different than federal ones by virtue of
-4-
Madison CA2013-12-037
Ohio's controlling statute on habeas corpus petitions. Rodgers v. Capots, 67 Ohio St.3d 435,
436 (1993). R.C. 2725.05 provides,
If it appears that a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is
in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or
magistrate, or by virtue of the judgment or order of a court of
record, and that the court or magistrate had jurisdiction to issue
the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ of
habeas corpus shall not be allowed. If the jurisdiction appears
after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by
reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or
order.
{¶ 18} Based on the limited nature of Ohio's habeas corpus statute, the Ohio Supreme
Court concluded that habeas corpus is "not the proper remedy to address every concern a
prisoner has about his legal rights or status." Rodgers, 67 Ohio St.3d at 436. The court
further found that testing a constitutional issue "is not the function of the state writ of habeas
corpus." Id. Again, and similar to a defendant's ability to challenge an indictment, the court
noted that the defendant "must elect some other cause of action" to challenge the
constitutionality of a statute. Id. See also State ex rel. McGrath v. Gilligan, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 83884, 2005-Ohio-619 (denying petition for writ of habeas corpus where
petition's challenge was to the constitutionality of a statute).
{¶ 19} Fears' petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied and dismissed
by the trial court. Even if the petition had been properly filed, it would have been dismissed
because a petition for a state-issued writ of habeas corpus is not the proper method for
challenging either an indictment or the constitutionality of a statute. As such, Fears'
assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 20} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
-5-