Case Title: Wills v. Turner

Citation: 2017-Ohio-6874

Docket Number: 2016-1303

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-07-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Wills 
v. Turner, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-6874.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2017-OHIO-6874 
WILLS, APPELLANT, v. TURNER, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Wills v. Turner, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-6874.] 
Habeas corpus—Sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not cognizable in 
habeas corpus—Error caused by failure to file a criminal complaint is not 
cognizable in habeas corpus—Inmate failed to comply with mandatory 
filing requirements—Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 2016-1303—Submitted May 16, 2017—Decided July 25, 2017.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, 
No. 9-16-18. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals 
dismissing the petition of appellant, Jeffrey A. Wills, for a writ of habeas corpus. 
{¶ 2} According to his petition, Wills was indicted for rape in 1988.  He 
entered a plea of not guilty and was released on bond.  In 1989, the trial court 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
revoked his bond and issued an arrest warrant, but police did not arrest Wills until 
2003.  In 2004, he pleaded guilty to an amended rape charge, was convicted, and 
was sentenced to a term of 10 to 25 years’ imprisonment.  He is presently 
incarcerated in the North Central Correctional Institution, and his maximum 
sentence expires on October 14, 2028. 
{¶ 3} On April 26, 2016, Wills filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
in the Third District Court of Appeals, asserting flaws in the charging instrument 
and his sentence.  Respondent, Neil Turner, the warden of North Central 
Correctional Institution, filed a motion to dismiss.  The court of appeals granted the 
motion, finding that Wills’s petition did not comply with the mandatory filing 
requirements of R.C. 2725.04(D) and 2969.25 and that his claims were not 
cognizable in habeas corpus. 
{¶ 4} Habeas corpus “will lie only to challenge the jurisdiction of the 
sentencing court.  R.C. 2725.05.  The few situations in which habeas corpus may 
lie to correct a nonjurisdictional error are those in which there is no adequate 
remedy at law.”  Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio-3719, 996 
N.E.2d 919, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 5} Wills alleges two grounds for habeas relief.  First, he objects to the 
trial court’s sentencing him under the law in effect at the time of his 1988 
indictment, rather than the law in effect at the time of his 2004 guilty plea, which 
would have resulted in a shorter sentence.  Second, he claims that the trial court 
lacked jurisdiction over his case because the state never filed a complaint or a 
properly sworn affidavit against him. 
{¶ 6} Neither claim is cognizable in this action.  “[S]entencing errors are 
not jurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus.”  Majoros v. Collins, 64 
Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038 (1992).  Likewise, “[a]ny alleged error 
caused by the failure to file a criminal complaint is not cognizable in habeas corpus” 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
when the defendant “was convicted and sentenced upon an indictment.”  State ex 
rel. Jackson v. Brigano, 88 Ohio St.3d 180, 181, 724 N.E.2d 424 (2000). 
{¶ 7} Wills also challenges the court of appeals’ decision to dismiss his 
petition for his noncompliance with R.C. 2725.04(D) and 2969.25.  When filing a 
habeas corpus petition, inmates are statutorily required to attach a copy of their 
commitment papers, R.C. 2725.04(D).  Moreover, for a petition filed in the court 
of appeals, as here, the inmate must file an affidavit listing all federal and state civil 
actions or appeals of civil actions filed in the previous five years, R.C. 2969.25(A), 
and, if applicable, an affidavit of indigency with supporting financial disclosure 
statements, R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) and (2).  Noncompliance with any of these 
requirements is fatal and provides a sufficient basis for dismissing a petition.  See 
Cook v. State, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2016-Ohio-3415, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 7 (R.C. 
2725.04(D)); State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 
N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5 (R.C. 2969.25). 
{¶ 8} In his initial brief, Wills asserted that he filed his petition “with all the 
required attached documents.”  However, the record does not bear out Wills’s 
assertion: he did not attach any of the required documents.  Alternatively, he asks 
the court to afford him leniency in complying with these statutory requirements in 
light of his status as a pro se petitioner.  But “ ‘[i]t is well established that pro se 
litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and that 
they are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.’ ”  
State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 
25, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 
654, 763 N.E.2d 1238 (10th Dist.2001). 
{¶ 9} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 
dismissing Wills’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and DEWINE, JJ., 
concur. 
O’NEILL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
FISCHER, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Jeffrey A. Wills, pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________