DocketNumber: Appellate No. 21473.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 1122
Judges: PER CURIAM:
Filed Date: 2/22/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} On February 9, 2006, the Petitioner filed with this Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner asserts that the State of Missouri no longer has jurisdiction over him, and therefore the State of Ohio is precluded from detaining him or extraditing him to the State of Missouri. Presently before this Court is a motion to dismiss the petition, filed by the Respondent, Dave Vore, Sheriff of Montgomery County, on February 15, 2006.
{¶ 3} Respondent asserts the petition should be dismissed because: (1) the petition is not verified pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 4} Respondent first asserts that, pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 5} Second, Respondent asserts that the petition should be dismissed because the Petitioner has failed to attach the commitment papers to the petition. The failure of a petitioner to attach the papers, which cause the commitment that is being challenged, is fatal to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.See e.g., State ex rel. Bray v. Brigano (2001),
{¶ 6} The Petitioner has included both the governor's warrant from the State of Missouri, and the governor's warrant from Ohio. The Petitioner was initially detained, and released on bond, pursuant to an outstanding fugitive warrant. It is the Ohio governor's warrant, however, which ordered the Petitioner arrested, detained and brought before a judge of a court of record. Further, it was only after the issuance of the Ohio governor's warrant that the trial court judge ordered the Petitioner detained without bond. Thus, we conclude that the Ohio governor's warrant is the "commitment paper" for the purpose of Petitioner's present detention. Accordingly, as the Petitioner has included the Ohio governor's warrant with his petition, Respondent's second argument is without merit.
{¶ 7} Third, Respondent asserts that the petition should be dismissed because the Petitioner has failed to state, with particularity, the extraordinary circumstances that entitle him to habeas corpus relief. The failure to state with particularity the circumstances entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief may result in dismissal of the petition. See Chari v.Vore (2001),
{¶ 8} We disagree with Respondent's assertion, however, that Petitioner has failed to plead with particularity the circumstances entitling him to habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner specifically asserts that the State of Missouri no longer has jurisdiction over him, and therefore the State of Ohio may not detain him in order to extradite him to Missouri. Although we do not pass judgment on the merits of Petitioner's claims at this time, we do conclude that his contentions are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Thus, Respondent's third argument is not well taken.
{¶ 9} Finally, Respondent asserts that the Petitioner has an adequate remedy at law pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 10} Although the habeas petition in extradition cases is often filed in the trial court, there is no specific statutory requirement that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus may only be filed with the trial court. The Ohio Supreme Court, the courts of appeals and the trial courts all have concurrent original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings. See Ohio Constitution Article IV-2(B)(1)(c); Ohio Constitution Article IV-3(B)(1)(c); R.C.
{¶ 11} We note, however, that the hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding, brought by a fugitive in an asylum state, is a summary proceeding and very limited in scope. Carpenter v.Jamerson (1982),
{¶ 12} In sum, upon our review of the motion to dismiss we conclude that the Petitioner has properly invoked our jurisdiction, and thus the motion to dismiss is DENIED. By separate entry, the Court will issue the writ of habeas corpus, which will require the Respondent to produce the body of the Petitioner at a hearing before this Court on March 1, 2006, at 1:30 P.M.
SO ORDERED.
Thomas J. Grady, Presiding Judge.
William H. Wolff, Jr., Judge.
Mike Fain, Judge.