Case Title: Simmons v. Black

Citation: 2022-Ohio-352

Docket Number: 2021-1146

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2022-02-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Simmons v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-352.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2022-OHIO-352 
SIMMONS v. BLACK, WARDEN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Simmons v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-352.] 
Habeas corpus—Petitioner failed to state a valid claim for relief in habeas—Writ 
denied. 
(No. 2021-1146—Submitted October 26, 2021—Decided February 10, 2022.) 
IN HABEAS CORPUS. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Petitioner, Willie Simmons, seeks a writ of habeas corpus ordering 
his release from the Lorain Correctional Institution, where respondent, Jennifer 
Gillece Black, is the warden.  We deny the writ. 
I.  Factual and Procedural Background 
A.  Allegations in Simmons’s Petition 
{¶ 2} Simmons was convicted of sexual battery and gross sexual imposition 
in 2009 and sentenced to three years and six months in prison.  The judgment entry 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
of conviction states that Simmons “was advised that he is subject to five (5) years 
post release control pursuant to ORC § 2967.28.”  Simmons completed his sentence 
and was released from prison on September 12, 2012. 
{¶ 3} On June 25, 2021, the Adult Parole Authority (“APA”) took Simmons 
into custody for allegedly violating the terms of his postrelease control.  On July 
29, the APA found that Simmons had committed the alleged violation and imposed 
a prison term of 115 days.  Simmons commenced this action on September 10, 
seeking his release by claiming that the APA lacks authority to imprison him for 
violating the terms of his postrelease control.  We ordered a return of writ.  164 
Ohio St.3d 1444, 2021-Ohio-3367, 173 N.E.3d 1234. 
B.  Black’s Return of Writ 
{¶ 4} Black timely filed her return on October 15 and provided the 
following facts and documentation that Simmons did not include in his habeas 
petition. 
{¶ 5} Shortly after Simmons was released from prison in Ohio, he was 
transferred to New York for parole supervision relating to a conviction in that state.  
While in New York, Simmons was convicted of a sex offense in May 2015 and 
sentenced to three and a half years in a New York prison.  Simmons served his 
sentence and was extradited to Ohio in June 2021. 
{¶ 6} When Simmons returned to Ohio, the APA held a hearing on charges 
that he violated the terms of his postrelease control imposed pursuant to his Ohio 
convictions.  Due to the sex offense he committed in New York, the APA found 
that Simmons had violated the terms of his Ohio postrelease control and sentenced 
him to 115 days’ incarceration.1 
 
1.  Simmons’s five-year period of postrelease control commenced on September 12, 2012, when he 
was released from prison in Ohio.  He was not charged with a postrelease-control violation in Ohio, 
however, until June 2021.  We note that Black’s return indicates that the APA declared Simmons a 
“PRC Violator in Custody” on May 21, 2015.  Thus, Simmons’s postrelease-control period may not 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
3 
II.  Analysis 
{¶ 7} To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must show that 
he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty and that he is entitled to immediate 
release from confinement.  R.C. 2725.01; State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr, 155 Ohio 
St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10.  “A writ of habeas corpus is 
generally ‘available only when the petitioner’s maximum sentence has expired and 
he is being held unlawfully.’ ”  Leyman v. Bradshaw, 146 Ohio St.3d 522, 2016-
Ohio-1093, 59 N.E.3d 1236, ¶ 8, quoting Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 
214, 702 N.E.2d 1198 (1998).  Habeas is not available to challenge a 
nonjurisdictional error when there is or was an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of the law.  State ex rel. Walker v. Sloan, 147 Ohio St.3d 353, 2016-Ohio-
7451, 65 N.E.3d 744, ¶ 7. 
{¶ 8} Simmons alleges that the APA lacks authority to administer 
postrelease control “when a sentencing entry does not contain all the required 
enabling statements, such as the APA will administer the PRC and that there are 
consequences for violating the conditions of PRC.”  Thus, Simmons is challenging 
the validity of his imprisonment on the basis that the 2009 sentencing entry did not 
specify that the APA had the authority to impose or administer the postrelease-
control sanction.  But this argument does not state a valid claim for relief in habeas 
corpus. 
{¶ 9} In order to validly impose postrelease control, a sentencing entry must 
contain the following information: (1) whether postrelease control is discretionary 
or mandatory, (2) the duration of the postrelease-control period, and (3) a statement 
 
have expired by June 25, 2021, when he was extradited to Ohio.  See R.C. 2967.15(C)(1) (the time 
between the date on which a releasee is declared to be a violator and the date on which he is returned 
to APA custody in Ohio does not count as part of the term of postrelease control).  For his part, 
Simmons does not expressly allege the expiration of his postrelease-control period as a basis for his 
habeas claim, and he filed a waiver of the opportunity to respond to Black’s return. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
to the effect that the APA will administer the postrelease control pursuant to R.C. 
2967.28 and that any violation by the offender of the conditions of postrelease 
control will subject the offender to the consequences set forth in that statute.  State 
v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19, 2017-Ohio-2927, 85 N.E.3d 700, ¶ 1, 13.  Simmons 
cites Grimes as authority for his claimed right to immediate release, alleging that 
his sentencing entry lacked the third element from Grimes. 
{¶ 10} However, we clarified the meaning of Grimes in State v. Harper, 
160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248.  In Harper, as in this case, 
the sentencing entry failed to advise the defendant of the consequences of violating 
the conditions of his release.  But we rejected the notion that this defect rendered a 
sentence void; instead, we held that any error in the imposition of the postrelease-
control sanction was an error in the exercise of jurisdiction that could have been 
corrected on appeal.  Id. at ¶ 41. 
{¶ 11} Simmons claims that Harper does not bar this action, because he is 
challenging the APA’s authority to enforce the postrelease-control sanction and not 
the validity of the trial court’s sentencing entry.  But this is a distinction without a 
difference.  We rejected in Harper the proposition that an omission in the 
sentencing entry voids the imposition of postrelease control.  And Simmons had an 
adequate remedy by way of appeal to challenge any error in his sentencing entry. 
{¶ 12} For these reasons, Simmons is not entitled to relief in habeas corpus. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Willie Simmons, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Assistant Attorney 
General, for respondent. 
January Term, 2022