Case ID: ohio-st-3d_65/html/0145-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bloss, Appellant, v. Rogers, Warden, Appellee.
    [Cite as Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145.]
    (No. 92-215 —
    Submitted September 14, 1992 —
    Decided December 9, 1992.)
    
      Mark Bloss, pro se.
    
   Per Curiam.

Appellant claims it is unconstitutional to revoke a mentally ill person’s parole for violations caused by his mental illness. The court of appeals reached the correct conclusion when it dismissed appellant’s complaint for failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). These commitment 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. In re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus of Wells (Jan. 27, 1984), Lucas App. No. L-84-015, unreported, 1984 WL 4214.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.