State ex rel. Hogan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

[Cite as State ex rel. Hogan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2023-Ohio-285.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State ex rel. Tremain Hogan, :
Petitioner, :
v. : No. 22AP-497
Ohio [Adult] Parole Authority, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Respondent. :
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on January 31, 2023
On brief: Tremain Hogan, pro se.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, for respondent.
IN HABEAS CORPUS
ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
BOGGS, J.
{¶1} On August 12, 2022, Petitioner, Tremain Hogan, brought this original action
requesting this court to issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering respondent, the Ohio Adult
Parole Authority, to release him from custody.
{¶2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
this matter was referred to a magistrate who issued the appended decision, including
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The magistrate determined that this court lacks
jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2725.03 because petitioner is incarcerated in Mahoning
County, yet he filed his habeas corpus petition in Franklin County. Thus, the magistrate
recommended that this court dismiss petitioner's writ of habeas corpus.
{¶3} Petitioner has not filed objections to the magistrate's decision. "If no timely
objections are filed, the court may adopt a magistrate's decision unless the court determines
that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the decision." Civ.R.
53(D)(4)(c). Our review of the magistrate's decision reveals no error of law or other defect.
No. 22AP-497 2
We agree with the magistrate's conclusion that this court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner's
claim. "Pursuant to R.C. 2725.03, only a court located in the county in which the petitioner
is incarcerated possesses jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas corpus." State
ex rel. McIntyre v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 10th Dist. No. 19AP-732, 2021-Ohio-922, ¶ 12.
Because the Tenth District Court of Appeals is located in Franklin County, and petitioner is
incarcerated in Mahoning County, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain
petitioner's request for a writ of habeas corpus.
{¶4} Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision,
this court adopts the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Accordingly, we dismiss this action.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed.
LUPER SCHUSTER and EDELSTEIN, JJ., concur.
_________________
No. 22AP-497 3
APPENDIX
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State ex rel. Tremain Hogan, :
Petitioner, :
v. : No. 22AP-497
Ohio [Adult] Parole Authority, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Respondent. :
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
Rendered on August 23, 2022
Tremain Hogan, pro se.
G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.
IN HABEAS
ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
{¶5} Petitioner, Tremain Hogan, has filed this original action seeking the issuance
of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner lists Ohio Adult Parole Authority as the respondent.
Findings of Fact:
{¶6} 1. Petitioner is an inmate incarcerated at the Northeast Ohio Correctional
Center in Mahoning County, Ohio.
{¶7} 2. Respondent is an administrative unit of the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction.
{¶8} 3. The Tenth District Court of Appeals is in Franklin County, Ohio.
No. 22AP-497 4
{¶9} 4. On August 12, 2022, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a petition for
habeas corpus and a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the present case. In his petition,
petitioner states he was found to have violated the terms of his postrelease control and was
sentenced to an additional period of incarceration in violation of his rights under the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Discussion and Conclusions of Law:
{¶10} R.C. Chapter 2725 provides a basic, summary procedure for a habeas corpus
action. Pegan v. Crawmer, 73 Ohio St.3d 607, 609 (1995). To be entitled to a writ of habeas
corpus, an individual must show that they are subject to an unlawful deprivation of their
liberty and that they are entitled to immediate release from imprisonment or confinement.
R.C. 2725.01; State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, ¶ 10.
Under R.C. 2725.04, an application for writ of habeas corpus must be made by a petition
meeting certain specified statutory requirements. See Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323,
327 (2001).
{¶11} Upon receipt of a petition, a court must make an initial determination as to
whether the petition states a facially valid claim. If the court determines the petition states
a facially valid claim, it must allow the writ. Pegan at 609. Upon allowance of the writ, "the
clerk issues it, and service may be by a sheriff or other person deputed by the court." Id.,citing R.C. 2725.07 and 2725.11. However, "[a]n evidentiary hearing, discovery, and the
physical presence of the petitioner are not always required in habeas corpus proceedings
after allowance of the writ." Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 76 Ohio St.3d 380, 382 (1996). Where a
petition fails to state a claim for which habeas can be granted, a court should not allow the
writ and should dismiss the petition. Pegan at 609.
{¶12} R.C. 2725.03 governs the territorial jurisdiction of Ohio courts in habeas
corpus actions, providing in pertinent part:
If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state
benevolent or correctional institution, the location of which is
fixed by statute and at the time is in the custody of the officers
of the institution, no court or judge other than the courts or
judges of the county in which the institution is located has
jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas corpus for
his production or discharge.
No. 22AP-497 5
{¶13} This court has construed R.C. 2725.03 to hold that "only 'the courts or judges
of the county' where a petitioner's institution of incarceration is located has jurisdiction
over a petition for a writ of habeas corpus." State ex rel. Hardy v. Williams, 10th Dist. No.
21AP-441, 2022-Ohio-1254, ¶ 4. See Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-
4787, ¶ 17; Billiter v. Banks, 135 Ohio St.3d 426, 2013-Ohio-1719, ¶ 11.
{¶14} Here, petitioner, an inmate at a state correctional institution located in
Mahoning County, filed his petition in this court, which is located in Franklin County.
Because the petition was not filed in the county where the petitioner's institution of
incarceration is located, the magistrate finds this court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner's
petition. Accordingly, it is the decision and recommendation of the magistrate that the
petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed and, as a result, all pending motions are
rendered moot.
/S/ MAGISTRATE
JOSEPH E. WENGER IV
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as
error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or
legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a
finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii),
unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual
finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).