Case Title: Buoscio v. Bagley

Citation: 2001-Ohio-298

Docket Number: 20001691

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Buoscio v. Bagley, 91 Ohio St.3d 134, 2001-Ohio-298.] 
 
 
 
BUOSCIO, APPELLANT, v. BAGLEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Buoscio v. Bagley (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 134.] 
Habeas corpus to compel relator’s release from prison — Dismissal of petition 
affirmed. 
(No. 00-1691 — Submitted January 31, 2001 — Decided March 7, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 00-CA-64. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In July 1991, a Summit County Grand Jury returned an 
indictment charging appellant, Samuel Buoscio, with aggravated murder, having a 
weapon while under a disability, and various specifications.  The Summit County 
Court of Common Pleas granted the state’s motion to amend the aggravated 
murder charge to voluntary manslaughter, and Buoscio pled guilty to the amended 
charge and an accompanying firearm specification.  In January 1992, the common 
pleas court sentenced Buoscio to an aggregate prison term of thirteen to twenty-
eight years. 
 
In July 2000, Buoscio filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Richland 
County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison.  
Buoscio claimed that the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to amend his 
indictment and convict and sentence him for voluntary manslaughter.  In August 
2000, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the petition because of 
“petitioner’s failure to demonstrate on the face of said Petition that same was 
served upon the named respondent [Buoscio’s prison warden].” 
 
In his appeal of right, Buoscio claims that the court erred by dismissing his 
petition based on his failure to include a proof of service in his petition.  His 
warden counters that the court of appeals was required to dismiss the petition 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
because of the mandatory language of Civ.R. 5(D).1  For the following reasons, 
we hold that although the court’s rationale was incorrect, it did not err in 
dismissing the petition. 
 
The court of appeals dismissed Buoscio’s petition because his petition did 
not include any proof of service.  This reason is incorrect.  “[W]hatever the 
applicability of a particular Civil Rule, it is evident that R.C. Chapter 2725 
prescribes a basic, summary procedure for bringing a habeas action.”  Pegan v. 
Crawmer (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 607, 608-609, 653 N.E.2d 659, 661.  Service of 
the petition and the ordering of a return are required only if the petition states a 
facially valid claim and the court allows the writ.  Id., 73 Ohio St.3d at 609, 653 
N.E.2d at 661; State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 82 Ohio 
St.3d 270, 271, 695 N.E.2d 254, 255. 
 
In addition, even if the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service were 
applicable here, Civ.R. 5(D) would still not apply to Buoscio’s petition because it 
“governs the filing with the court of pleadings and papers subsequent to the filing 
of the original complaint.”  (Emphasis deleted and new emphasis added.)  Staff 
Note to July 1, 1971 Amendment of Civ.R. 5(D). 
 
Nevertheless, we are not authorized to reverse a correct judgment merely 
because erroneous reasons were given by the court of appeals.  See Page v. Riley 
(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 621, 624, 710 N.E.2d 690, 693, and cases cited therein. 
 
Dismissal of Buoscio’s petition was warranted because he challenged the 
validity or sufficiency of his indictment, as amended, and this claim is not 
cognizable in habeas corpus.  See State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano (1998), 82 Ohio 
St.3d 410, 696 N.E.2d 585 (affirmance of dismissal of habeas corpus petition 
claiming trial court improperly amended indictment charge of murder to a charge 
                                                          
 
1.  Civ.R. 5(D) provides that “[a]ll papers, after the complaint, required to be served upon a party 
shall be filed with the court within three days after service [and that] [p]apers filed with the court 
shall not be considered until proof of service is endorsed thereon or separately filed.” 
 
January Term, 2001 
3 
of involuntary manslaughter); cf., also, State v. Shane (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 630, 
632, 590 N.E.2d 272, 274 (voluntary manslaughter is an inferior-degree offense 
of murder). 
 
Based on the foregoing, although the court’s rationale was incorrect, its 
dismissal of Buoscio’s petition was proper.  Therefore, 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. 
__________________ 
 
Samuel Buoscio, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Karen E. Carter, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________