Case Title: State ex rel. Thomas v. Richard

Citation: 2017-Ohio-1343

Docket Number: 2016-0962

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-04-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Thomas v. Richard, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-1343.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-1343 
THE STATE EX REL. THOMAS, APPELLANT, v. RICHARD, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Thomas v. Richard, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-1343.] 
Habeas corpus—Appellant’s petition challenging validity of his extradition fails to 
state a claim in habeas corpus—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition 
affirmed. 
(No. 2016-0962—Submitted February 28, 2017—Decided April 20, 2017.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA2016-04-018. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Winston Thomas, appeals the Twelfth District 
Court of Appeals’ dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  We affirm. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Background 
{¶ 2} In 2007, Thomas was charged in Warren County, Ohio, with two 
drug-related felony offenses.  Before trial, Thomas fled the jurisdiction and was 
later convicted of federal drug charges and imprisoned in Pennsylvania. 
{¶ 3} In 2012, Thomas was extradited to Warren County, where he filed a 
pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment based on an alleged violation of Article 
IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), which provides that if a 
prisoner has been extradited to face charges but is then returned to the original place 
of imprisonment before trial on the indictment for which he was extradited, the 
indictment shall be dismissed with prejudice.  R.C. 2963.30 (codifying the IAD).  
Alternatively, he argued that he was extradited to Ohio from Pennsylvania without 
a hearing.  The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, rejecting both of the 
grounds asserted in the motion. 
{¶ 4} Thomas was convicted of the felony charges and sentenced to serve 
six years of incarceration. 
{¶ 5} On April 18, 2016, Thomas filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
in the Twelfth District Court of Appeals.  Respondent-appellee, Rhonda Richard, 
warden of the Madison Correctional Institution, filed a motion to dismiss.  The 
court of appeals granted the motion for failure to state a claim. 
{¶ 6} Thomas timely appealed to this court. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 7} Thomas’s habeas petition is based on a single theory: that Ohio lacks 
jurisdiction over him because he was returned to the state pursuant to a defective 
extradition request.  Thomas alleges that the extradition request was defective 
because Ohio failed to submit a governor’s warrant to the Pennsylvania court that 
held his extradition hearings. 
{¶ 8} A valid extradition request must include a warrant signed by the 
governor (or other executive) of the requesting state.  See 18 U.S.C. 3182; see also 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
R.C. 2963.21 (governing requests by Ohio to other states); 42 Pa.C.S. 9101 
(governing requests to Pennsylvania from other states).  However,  
 
“[i]t is virtually a universal rule of law that where a person accused 
of a crime is found within the territorial jurisdiction wherein he is so 
charged, and is held under process legally issued from a court of that 
jurisdiction, neither the jurisdiction of the court nor the right to put 
him on trial for the offense charged is impaired by the manner in 
which he was brought from another jurisdiction, whether by 
kidnapping, illegal arrest, abduction, or irregular extradition 
proceedings.” 
 
(Emphasis added.)  Tomkalski v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. 377, 378-379, 194 N.E.2d 
845 (1963), quoting Annotation, Right to Try One Brought Within Jurisdiction 
Illegally or as a Result of a Mistake as to Identity, 165 A.L.R. 948 (1946).  In plain 
terms, “[a] claim of illegal extradition does not state a claim in habeas corpus and 
will not void [a] conviction.”  Smith v. Jago, 58 Ohio St.2d 298, 389 N.E.2d 1138 
(1979). 
{¶ 9} For this reason, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 
dismissing Thomas’s petition for failure to state a claim. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, and 
DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
O’NEILL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________ 
Winston Thomas, pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and William H. Lamb, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10