Title: Boyd v. Money

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

BOYD, APPELLANT, v. MONEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Boyd v. Money (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Mandamus to compel release from commitment — Petition dismissed for failure to 
comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). 
(No. 97-2546 — Submitted June 24, 1998 — Decided July 29, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-97-67. 
 
In 1997, appellant, John A. Boyd, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals 
for Marion County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release 
from prison.  Boyd alleged that his parole had been improperly revoked but did 
not attach a copy of the commitment or cause of his detention, i.e., the parole 
revocation order he challenged.  Boyd also did not allege in his petition that he 
could not obtain a copy of his commitment or cause of detention. 
 
The court of appeals granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion of appellee, Boyd’s 
prison warden, and dismissed the petition.  Boyd subsequently attached a copy of 
his 1993 parole revocation order to his motion for leave to amend his motion for 
relief from judgment. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
John A. Boyd, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Donald Gary Keyser, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  Boyd did not 
comply with the R.C. 2725.04(D) requirement to attach his pertinent commitment 
papers.  State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 193, 194, 690 N.E.2d 
7, 8; Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602, 603 (“These 
 
2
commitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the petition.  
Without them the petition is fatally defective.”).  Boyd’s attachment of the 
purported cause of his commitment to his postjudgment motion did not cure the 
defect.  See, e.g., Cornell v. Schotten (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 466, 466-467, 633 
N.E.2d 1111, holding that warden’s attachment of a copy of the commitment order 
to motion to dismiss and petitioner’s memorandum in opposition to motion to 
dismiss did not cure R.C. 2725.04(D) defect. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.