Case Title: State ex rel. Winnick v. Gansheimer

Citation: 2006-Ohio-6521

Docket Number: 20061318

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Winnick v. Gansheimer, 112 Ohio St.3d 149, 2006-Ohio-6521.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. WINNICK, APPELLANT, v. GANSHEIMER, WARDEN, 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Winnick v Gansheimer, 112 Ohio St.3d 149, 2006-Ohio-
6521.] 
Habeas corpus — Petition that does not include copies of all pertinent 
commitment papers or verification required by R.C. 2725.04 is defective 
— Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 2006-1318 ─ Submitted November 15, 2006 ─ Decided  
December 27, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County,  
No. 2006-A-0009, 2006-Ohio-3431. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus.  Because the petition is fatally defective, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} On February 24, 2006, appellant, Horace Winnick, filed a petition 
in the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County for a writ of habeas corpus to 
compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him from prison.  Winnick claimed 
that he had served his sentence.  Winnick included a computer-generated prison 
update sheet indicating that he had been convicted and sentenced for four separate 
criminal offenses, but he attached a sentencing entry covering only two of the four 
convictions.  In addition, Winnick’s petition contained no verification. 
{¶ 3} On March 16, 2006, the court of appeals issued an alternative writ 
and ordered the warden to file either an answer or a motion to dismiss within 15 
days.  When the warden did not file a timely response, Winnick filed a motion for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
judgment on the pleadings.  On June 30, 2006, the court of appeals dismissed the 
petition. 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Winnick asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his petition.  For the following reasons, Winnick’s contentions 
lack merit. 
{¶ 5} Winnick’s petition was fatally defective because he failed to 
include copies of all pertinent commitment papers.  R.C. 2725.04(D).  Winnick 
attached a sentencing entry for two of his four convictions, but failed to attach 
entries for his remaining convictions, which are referred to in an exhibit to his 
petition.  Harris v. Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d 101, 2006-Ohio-1934, 846 N.E.2d 
43, ¶ 10.  “These commitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding 
of the petition.  Without them, the petition is fatally defective.”  Bloss v. Rogers 
(1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602.  The attached, but unsigned and 
unverified, update sheet does not constitute an appropriate commitment paper.  
Hairston v. Seidner (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 57, 58, 723 N.E.2d 575 (“court of 
record speaks only through its journal entries,” so failure to attach a sentencing 
entry for one of multiple criminal cases required dismissal of habeas corpus 
petition). 
{¶ 6} Moreover, Winnick’s petition was also fatally defective and 
subject to dismissal because it was not verified as required by R.C. 2725.04.  In re 
Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-
Ohio-5579, 816 N.E.2d 594, ¶ 17. 
{¶ 7} Finally, the mere fact that the warden did not submit a timely 
response to the petition when ordered to do so did not entitle Winnick to a default 
judgment granting the writ.  Cf. State ex rel. Shimola v. Cleveland (1994), 70 
Ohio St.3d 110, 112, 637 N.E.2d 325, quoting Civ.R. 55(D) (“a default judgment 
may be entered against the state only if the ‘claimant establishes his claim or right 
to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court’ ”).  Under Loc.R. 101(B)(2) of the 
January Term, 2006 
3 
Eleventh Appellate District, the granting of the alternative writ meant that the 
petition might not state a viable habeas corpus claim:  “If this Court concludes 
that the petition in habeas corpus may not state a viable claim for relief, an 
alternative writ shall be issued requiring the respondent to file a written response 
to the petition.”  Although this procedure appears comparable to allowing a writ 
pursuant to R.C. 2725.06, Winnick’s petition remained fatally defective and 
subject to dismissal.  Chari v. Vore (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 744 N.E.2d 
763 (court of appeals erred in allowing the writ and ordering a return in habeas 
corpus case because the petition was not properly verified). 
{¶ 8} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals acted properly by 
dismissing appellant’s petition.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court 
of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Horace Winnick, pro se. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Steven H. Eckstein, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________