Case Title: Workman v. Shiplevy

Citation: 1997-Ohio-128

Docket Number: 19970870

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
WORKMAN, APPELLANT, V. SHIPLEVY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Workman v. Shiplevy (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Habeas corpus to compel release from Lima Correctional Institution — Petition 
dismissed for failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). 
 
(No. 97-870 — Submitted September 9, 1997 — Decided October 29, 
1997.) 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. CA97020009. 
 
In February 1997, appellant, Kenneth D. Workman, an inmate at Lima 
Correctional Institution, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Allen County 
for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Warden Carole J. Shiplevy, to 
immediately release him from prison.  Workman claimed that he was entitled to 
the writ because of a 1991 nunc pro tunc entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of 
Common Pleas.  Workman attached a copy of the entry to his petition. Shiplevy 
filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.  The court of appeals granted Shiplevy’s 
motion and dismissed the petition because Workman did not attach copies of all 
pertinent commitment papers to his petition. 
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Kenneth D. Workman, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Donald G. Keyser, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Workman asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing 
his habeas corpus petition.  In order to withstand dismissal, a petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus must conform to R.C. 2725.04 and state with particularity the 
 
2
extraordinary circumstances entitling the petitioner to the writ.  McBroom v. 
Russell (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 47, 48, 671 N.E.2d 10, 11. 
 
The court of appeals correctly held that Workman did not comply with R.C. 
2725.04(D) because he did not attach all his pertinent commitment papers.  Brown 
v. Rogers (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 340-341, 650 N.E.2d 422, 423.  The nunc 
pro tunc entry attached to Workman’s petition references sentences in nine 
different criminal cases which were not attached to the petition. Although 
Workman’s claim is primarily based on the nunc pro tunc entry, the court of 
appeals did not err in holding that the other judgments referred to in that entry 
were pertinent and that it was impossible to have a complete understanding of 
Workman’s claim without them.  Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 
602 N.E.2d 602. 
 
In addition, even assuming that Workman’s contentions on appeal are 
correct, reversal of the court of appeals’ judgment is unwarranted because 
Workman also failed to verify his petition in accordance with R.C. 2725.04.    
McBroom, 77 Ohio St.3d at 48, 671 N.E.2d at 11; Messer v. McAninch (1997), 77 
Ohio St.3d 1511, 673 N.E.2d 1383. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed the petition. 
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.