Title: State ex rel. Sanchez v. Wainwright

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Sanchez v. Wainwright, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-747.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-747 
THE STATE EX REL. SANCHEZ, APPELLANT, v. WAINWRIGHT, WARDEN, 
APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Sanchez v. Wainwright, Slip Opinion  
No. 2021-Ohio-747.] 
Habeas corpus—R.C. 2969.25—Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory, 
and failure to comply with the statute warrants dismissal of the complaint—
Court of appeals’ judgment of dismissal affirmed. 
(No. 2020-0994—Submitted January 26, 2021—Decided March 16, 2021.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-20-13. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jesse Sanchez, an inmate at the Marion Correctional 
Institution, appeals the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals dismissing 
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  We affirm. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Background 
{¶ 2} In August 2016, Sanchez pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking 
in cocaine and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.  With respect 
to three of the cocaine-trafficking counts, the trial court imposed prison sentences 
of eight years, to be served concurrently with each other and with the six-year 
prison sentence imposed for the engaging-in-a-pattern-of-corrupt-activity count.  
The trial court sentenced Sanchez to a prison term of six years for the other cocaine-
trafficking count, to be served consecutively to the other sentences, for an aggregate 
prison sentence of 14 years. 
{¶ 3} On April 24, 2020, Sanchez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
in the Third District Court of Appeals.  Sanchez alleged that his sentences were 
void because the trial court failed to make the statutorily required findings under 
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive prison sentences. 
{¶ 4} In July 2020, the court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss of 
appellee, Warden Lyneal Wainwright, for two reasons.  First, the court held that the 
petition failed to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2969.25.  And second, the court 
held that the petition failed to state a claim cognizable in habeas corpus, because 
habeas corpus is not the proper vehicle by which to raise sentencing errors. 
{¶ 5} Sanchez appealed to this court. 
Legal analysis 
{¶ 6} R.C. 2969.25(A) requires an inmate who commences “a civil action 
or appeal” against a governmental entity or employee to file an affidavit containing 
“a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has 
filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.”  The affidavit must 
include (1) a brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal, (2) the case 
name, case number, and court in which the civil action or appeal was brought, 
(3) the name of each party to the civil action or appeal, and (4) the outcome of the 
civil action or appeal.  R.C. 2969.25(A).  “Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
mandatory, and failure to comply will warrant dismissal.”  State v. Henton, 146 
Ohio St.3d 9, 2016-Ohio-1518, 50 N.E.3d 553, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 7} Sanchez did not attach an affidavit of his prior civil actions or appeals 
to his petition.  He did not address that defect in his memorandum opposing 
Wainwright’s motion to dismiss, nor does he discuss it in his merit brief before this 
court. 
{¶ 8} The court of appeals correctly dismissed Sanchez’s habeas petition 
for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A).  Because we agree with that 
disposition, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether the substance of the petition 
states a claim cognizable in habeas corpus. 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Jesse Sanchez, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Daniel J. Benoit, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________