Case Title: Wooton v. Brunsman

Citation: 2006-Ohio-6524

Docket Number: 20061559

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

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

Document:
[Cite as Wooton v. Brunsman, 112 Ohio St.3d 153, 2006-Ohio-6524.] 
 
 
WOOTON, APPELLANT, v. BRUNSMAN, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Wooton v. Brunsman, 112 Ohio St.3d 153, 2006-Ohio-6524.] 
Habeas corpus — Petition that does not include copies of all pertinent 
commitment papers required by R.C. 2725.04 is defective — Court of 
appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 2006-1559 — Submitted November 15, 2006 ─Decided  
December 27, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 06CA2908. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus.  We affirm. 
{¶ 2} On June 22, 2006, Ronald L. Wooton, an inmate at the Chillicothe 
Correctional Institution, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his 
immediate release from prison.  Wooton claimed that his 1997 conviction and 
sentence for felonious sexual penetration is void because before he was indicted, 
the pertinent statute was repealed.  Wooton also alleged that his defense counsel 
cooperated in forcing him to plead guilty to a lesser offense.  Wooton failed to 
attach a copy of his 1997 sentencing entry.  Appellee, the prison warden, filed a 
motion to dismiss the petition. 
{¶ 3} On July 28, 2006, the court of appeals granted appellee’s motion 
and dismissed the petition. 
{¶ 4} In this appeal as of right, we conclude that the court of appeals 
properly dismissed the petition for the following reasons. 
{¶ 5} As the court of appeals held, Wooton’s petition was fatally 
defective and subject to dismissal because he failed to attach a copy of his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
pertinent commitment papers, i.e., his sentencing entry.  Waites v. Gansheimer, 
110 Ohio St.3d 250, 2006-Ohio-4358, 852 N.E.2d 1204, ¶ 7; R.C. 2725.04(D). 
{¶ 6} Moreover, having previously filed a petition for habeas corpus, see 
Wooton v. Wilkinson (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1522, 747 N.E.2d 249, res judicata 
barred Wooton from filing a successive habeas corpus petition.  Fortson v. 
Bradshaw, 109 Ohio St.3d 250, 2006-Ohio-2291, 846 N.E.2d 1258, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 7} Finally, Wooton’s claims of an invalid indictment and ineffective 
assistance of counsel are not cognizable in habeas corpus.  Turner v. Ishee, 98 
Ohio St.3d 411, 2003-Ohio-1671, 786 N.E.2d 54, ¶ 7; Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio 
St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-4356, 852 N.E.2d 1200, ¶ 7.  Wooton could have raised his 
claims by way of direct appeal. 
{¶ 8} Based on the foregoing, 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. 
__________________ 
 
Ronald L. Wooton, pro se. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Steven H. Eckstein, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________