Case Title: Pence v. Bunting

Citation: 2015-Ohio-2026

Docket Number: 2014-1352

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-05-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Pence v. Bunting, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2026.] 
  
 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2026 
PENCE, APPELLANT, v. BUNTING, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Pence v. Bunting, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2026.] 
Habeas corpus—Petitioner failed to include all necessary commitment papers 
with his petition—R.C. 2725.04(D)—Petitioner not eligible for release 
because sentence has not expired—Dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2014-1352—Submitted February 3, 2015—Decided May 28, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-14-14. 
_____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the Third District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the 
petition of appellant, Todd A. Pence, for a writ of habeas corpus because he failed 
to include all commitment papers with his complaint and because his maximum 
sentence has not been served. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Facts and procedural history 
{¶ 2} Pence is a state prisoner in custody serving several sentences for 
multiple felony convictions.  In case No. 02 CR 121, Pence pleaded no contest 
and was found guilty of two first-degree felony charges for aggravated vehicular 
homicide. In March 2003, he was sentenced to eight years in prison for each 
conviction, to be served consecutively to each other and to any other sentence he 
was serving.  The maximum sentence for the two eight-year sentences expires on 
October 25, 2018.  The court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentences on 
direct appeal.  State v. Pence, 4th Dist. Ross No. 03CA2719, 2003-Ohio-6943.  
No further appeal was taken. 
{¶ 3} When Pence was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide, he 
was on parole from an indefinite sentence of 3 to 15 years for robbery in case No. 
94 CR 265.  His maximum sentence for the robbery offense expires on March 7, 
2026. 
{¶ 4} On April 29, 2014, Pence filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
in the Third District Court of Appeals.  He attached his judgment of conviction 
and sentencing entry for case No. 02 CR 121 to his complaint, but he failed to 
attach any documents from case No. 94 CR 265. 
{¶ 5} Respondent-appellee, Jason Bunting, warden of the Marion 
Correctional Institution, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the habeas petition 
was procedurally defective and the claim was not cognizable in habeas.  The 
Third District granted the motion to dismiss, and Pence appealed. 
Analysis 
{¶ 6} The court of appeals properly dismissed Pence’s complaint because 
he failed to attach all his commitment papers to his complaint in violation of R.C. 
2725.04(D).  Such a failure is fatal to a petition for habeas corpus. State ex rel. 
McCuller v. Callahan, 98 Ohio St.3d 307, 2003-Ohio-858, 784 N.E.2d 108, ¶ 4, 
citing State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 95 Ohio St.3d 70, 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
71, 765 N.E.2d 356 (2002), Malone v. Lane, 96 Ohio St.3d 415, 2002-Ohio-4908, 
775 N.E.2d 527, at ¶ 6, and Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 328, 744 N.E.2d 
763 (2001). 
{¶ 7} Pence argues that he did not attach the journal entry for his robbery 
conviction because that commitment “had absolutely nothing to do” with his 
current cause of detention, i.e., the two convictions of aggravated vehicular 
homicide.  However, as pointed out by Bunting, all commitment papers are 
necessary for a complete understanding of the petition.  “ ‘ “Where a petitioner is 
incarcerated for several crimes, the fact that the sentencing court may have lacked 
jurisdiction to sentence him on one of the crimes does not warrant his release in 
habeas corpus.” ’ ˮ Haynes v. Voorhies, 110 Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355, 
852 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 7, quoting Marshall v. Lazaroff, 77 Ohio St.3d 443, 444, 674 
N.E.2d 1378 (1997), quoting Swiger v. Seidner, 74 Ohio St.3d 685, 687, 660 
N.E.2d 1214 (1996). 
{¶ 8} Here, Pence is incarcerated under several convictions.  His sentences 
for aggravated vehicular homicide and robbery are to be served consecutively to 
each other.  Thus, his ultimate sentence, including the sentence for robbery for 
which he did not include commitment papers, does not expire until March 7, 
2026.  The robbery sentence is clearly pertinent to his entitlement to a writ of 
habeas corpus, and the lack of those commitment papers is fatal. 
{¶ 9} In addition, an inmate is not usually eligible for habeas until his 
maximum sentence has expired, Morgan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 68 Ohio 
St.3d 344, 346, 626 N.E.2d 939 (1994).  Pence’s maximum sentence is far from 
expiring.  “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, citing State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 186, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
652 N.E.2d 746 (1995), citing State ex rel. Pirman v. Money, 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 
593, 635 N.E.2d 26 (1994). 
{¶ 10} Pence concedes that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction to 
hear a criminal case generally, but lacked it “under the facts of [his criminal] 
case.” He also concedes that jurisdictional errors are not cognizable in habeas 
except “under the facts of this case.” He asserts only that the case involves the 
kind of “extraordinary circumstances” alluded to in Pirman.  However, he does 
not discuss or explain what the extraordinary circumstances are in his case, and 
we decline to make his argument for him. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
Todd A. Pence, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_____________________