Case Title: Cook v. State

Citation: 2016-Ohio-3415

Docket Number: 2015-1310

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cook 
v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3415.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-3415 
COOK, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cook v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3415.] 
Habeas corpus—Appellant is no longer imprisoned and failed to attach 
commitment papers pursuant to R.C. 2725.04(D)—Court of appeals’ 
dismissal of petition for writ affirmed. 
(No. 2015-1310—Submitted March 8, 2016—Decided June 16, 2016.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, 
No. 1-15-21. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Tony D. Cook, appeals from the judgment of the Third 
District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  
Because he is not in prison or otherwise restrained of his liberty, he is not eligible 
for habeas corpus relief and we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Relevant Background 
{¶ 2} In 1997, Cook pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition 
in Allen County.  The trial court sentenced him to 18 months in prison and after a 
classification hearing, adjudicated him a sexual predator under the version of R.C. 
2950.09(B)(1) then in effect.  We upheld his sexual-predator classification.  State 
v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 426, 700 N.E.2d 570 (1998). 
{¶ 3} Cook served his prison sentence and was released by the institution 
but is still subject to the reporting requirements imposed as a result of having been 
adjudicated a sexual predator.  State v. Cook, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-15-21 (July 2, 
2015).  On April 20, 2015, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court 
of appeals, seeking an order striking his “reclassification as a sexual predator 
applied under the newly enacted Megan[’]s Law and the AWA act.” 
{¶ 4} Appellee, the state of Ohio, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the 
court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to grant habeas relief because Cook is not in 
custody in Allen County.  The court of appeals subsequently dismissed the petition 
for three reasons:  Cook is not in custody or restrained of his liberty, the petition 
contained no “allegation directed to how or why the ‘State of Ohio’ is named as [a] 
party,” and Cook failed to attach his commitment papers to the petition in violation 
of R.C. 2725.04(D).  Cook, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-15-21, at 1-2. 
Analysis 
{¶ 5} We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing Cook’s petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus.  He is no longer imprisoned or restrained of his liberty, 
as is required before a court may grant a writ of habeas corpus, R.C. 2725.01.  In 
addition, Cook’s petition contained numerous procedural deficiencies that violate 
R.C. 2725.04. 
{¶ 6} A person is not eligible for a writ of habeas corpus unless he is 
“unlawfully restrained of his liberty.”  R.C. 2725.01; see Larsen v. State, 92 Ohio 
St.3d 69, 748 N.E.2d 72 (2001).  When Cook filed his petition, he had been released 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
from incarceration for the conviction for which his sex-offender reporting duties 
were imposed.  In fact, in a supplemental pleading that he filed after his petition, 
he listed his address as 4937 Sierra Drive, Lot A, Pensacola, Florida 32526.  
Because Cook is challenging the registration requirement and not his incarceration 
and because he is no longer physically confined for the conviction to which his 
reporting duties attached, he is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.  State ex rel. 
Smirnoff v. Greene, 84 Ohio St.3d 165, 167-168, 702 N.E.2d 423 (1998). 
{¶ 7} In addition, Cook’s petition was subject to dismissal because he failed 
to attach to it any commitment papers in violation of R.C. 2725.04(D).  A failure to 
comply with R.C. 2725.04(D) is fatal to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  State 
ex rel. Al’shahid v. Cook, 144 Ohio St.3d 15, 2015-Ohio-2079, 40 N.E.3d 1073,  
¶ 8.  Thus, even if he had been imprisoned or restrained of his liberty at the time he 
filed his petition, Cook’s failure to attach commitment papers in compliance with 
R.C. 2725.04(D) is a sufficient basis on which to dismiss his petition. 
{¶ 8} Finally, Cook has not claimed that the sentencing court lacked 
jurisdiction to sentence him and adjudicate him a sexual predator.  Rather, he argues 
that he has been unlawfully reclassified under Megan’s Law and/or Ohio’s Adam 
Walsh Act.  “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.  
Cook had available—and has used—other remedies to challenge his sex-offender 
classification.  In fact, he appealed his sex-offender classification to this court, and 
we upheld the classification.  Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d at 426, 700 N.E.2d 570.  And  
“ ‘[w]here a plain and adequate remedy at law has been unsuccessfully invoked, 
extraordinary relief is not available to relitigate the same issue.’ ”  State ex rel. 
O’Neal v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 339, 2014-Ohio-4037, 18 N.E.3d 430, ¶ 15, 
quoting Childers v. Wingard, 83 Ohio St.3d 427, 428, 700 N.E.2d 588 (1998). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 9} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Tony D. Cook, pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Paul Kerridge, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________