Title: Hazel v. Knab

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Hazel v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4608.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-4608 
HAZEL, APPELLANT, v. KNAB, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Hazel v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4608.] 
(No. 2011-0825 — Submitted September 7, 2011 — Decided  
September 15, 2011.) 
Habeas corpus — Dismissal of petition affirmed — R.C. 2969.25(C) — Failure to 
include certified statement of inmate account balance in affidavit of 
indigency is fatal defect. 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 11CA3231. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
petition of appellant, Corey Hazel, for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his 
release from prison.  As the court of appeals correctly held, Hazel’s petition was 
defective because although he filed an affidavit of indigency and sought waiver of 
prepayment of the court’s filing fees, he failed to include in his affidavit of 
indigency a statement setting forth the balance in his inmate account for each of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier, in violation of 
R.C. 2969.25(C).  “The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure 
to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.”  State ex rel. White 
v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5.  Hazel’s 
subsequent filing of the statement did not cure the defect.  See R.C. 2969.25(C); 
see also Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 
982, ¶ 9.  And although Hazel attempts to excuse his noncompliance with R.C. 
2969.25(C) by citing a purported prison policy, which he attached to his reply 
brief, we cannot consider any evidence that is not part of the record on appeal.  
See State ex rel. Albourque v. Terry, 128 Ohio St.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-1913, 947 
N.E.2d 169, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 2} Moreover, because Hazel either raised or could have raised his 
claims in a previous habeas corpus case, see Hazel v. Knab, 125 Ohio St.3d 1460, 
2010-Ohio-2753, 928 N.E.2d 736, res judicata barred him from filing a successive 
habeas corpus petition in the court of appeals.  See Goins v. Pineda, 128 Ohio 
St.3d 358, 2011-Ohio-529, 944 N.E.2d 660. 
{¶ 3} Finally, because Hazel’s petition did not state a facially valid habeas 
corpus claim, the appellate court’s dismissal without prior notice was proper and 
in accordance with the basic, summary procedure of R.C. Chapter 2725.  Wells v. 
Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 308, 2007-Ohio-1955, 865 N.E.2d 46, ¶ 9; Chari v. Vore 
(2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 744 N.E.2d 763. 
{¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Hazel’s habeas 
corpus petition, and we affirm the judgment. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Corey Hazel, pro se. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Hilda Rosenberg, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________