Title: Westerfield v. Bracy

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Westerfield v. Bracy, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-499.] 
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-499 
WESTERFIELD, APPELLANT, v. BRACY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Westerfield v. Bracy, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-499.] 
Habeas corpus—Inmate failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)—Court of appeals’ 
judgment dismissing petition affirmed. 
(No. 2022-0814—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided February 23, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No. 2022-T-0012, 
2022-Ohio-1904. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jason L. Westerfield, is imprisoned at Trumbull 
Correctional Institution, where appellee, Charmaine Bracy, is the warden.  
Westerfield appeals the Eleventh District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of his petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus.  Because Westerfield failed to comply with the 
mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A), we affirm. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} Westerfield was indicted in July 2017 for felonious assault and 
aggravated robbery (Crawford C.P. case No. 17-CR-0158), and in September 2017 
for aggravated burglary (case No. 17-CR-0235).  The indictments were 
consolidated for trial.  A jury acquitted Westerfield of all offenses charged in the 
indictments but found him guilty of the lesser included offense of burglary in case 
No. 17-CR-0235.  The trial court sentenced Westerfield to seven years in prison.  
The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.  State v. Westerfield, 
3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-17-16, 2018-Ohio-2139. 
{¶ 3} Westerfield filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Eleventh 
District Court of Appeals in February 2022.  He sought immediate release from 
prison on the ground that “there is no record” of the jury’s finding him guilty of 
burglary in case No. 17-CR-0235.  According to Westerfield, the verdict forms 
from his trial are unsigned and do not have the word “guilty” circled on them.  
Westerfield therefore contends that his burglary conviction is void and that he is 
entitled to immediate release. 
{¶ 4} Bracy filed a motion to dismiss the action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), 
arguing that (1) Westerfield’s R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit accompanying his petition 
is deficient and (2) his claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus.  Westerfield 
opposed the motion.  The court of appeals granted Bracy’s motion to dismiss, 
finding that Westerfield could have raised the issue of the jury verdict’s validity on 
direct appeal.  Because of that determination, the court of appeals found the issue 
of Westerfield’s R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit to be moot. 
{¶ 5} Westerfield appealed to this court as of right. 
ANALYSIS 
{¶ 6} An inmate who files a habeas corpus petition in the court of appeals 
must attach an affidavit listing all federal and state civil actions and appeals of civil 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
3 
actions he has filed in the previous five years.  See R.C. 2969.25(A); State ex rel. 
Dixon v. Bowerman, 156 Ohio St.3d 317, 2019-Ohio-716, 126 N.E.3d 1086, ¶ 4.  
R.C. 2969.25(A) requires “strict compliance,” and noncompliance with its 
requirements “is fatal and provides a sufficient basis for dismissing a petition.”  
State ex rel. Steele v. Foley, 164 Ohio St.3d 540, 2021-Ohio-2073, 173 N.E.3d 
1209, ¶ 7.  The affidavit must describe the nature of the civil action or appeal and 
include the case name, case number, and the court in which the case or appeal was 
brought, the name of each party, and the outcome of the case.  R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) 
through (4). 
{¶ 7} The court of appeals did not reach the issue of Westerfield’s 
compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A), finding that “[its] substantive ruling regarding 
[Bracy’s] motion to dismiss render[ed] this [alleged] deficiency moot.”  2022-
Ohio-1904, ¶ 10.  On appeal, Bracy reprises the R.C. 2969.25(A) argument as a 
basis for affirming the court of appeals’ dismissal of Westerfield’s habeas petition.  
Because the court of appeals did not reach the issue, Westerfield argues that we 
should not reach it in this appeal.  But Bracy may properly assert grounds not ruled 
on by the court of appeals as an alternative basis for affirmance.  See Couchot v. 
State Lottery Comm., 74 Ohio St.3d 417, 423, 659 N.E.2d 1225 (1996).  Therefore, 
we consider whether Westerfield’s R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit is deficient. 
{¶ 8} Westerfield listed two civil actions in his R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit, 
which he described as follows: 
 
On November 12, 2018, I filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 
Corpus to the federal court in Ohio.  The case number is 1:19 CV 
1733. 
On July 14, 2020, I filed a civil claim in the Court of Claims 
of Ohio, Case No. 2020-00036AD. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
 
This disclosure is deficient because Westerfield did not name the parties or reveal 
the outcomes of the cases.  See R.C. 2969.25(A)(3) and (4).  Thus, Westerfield’s 
affidavit does not strictly comply with the statute. 
{¶ 9} Moreover, by Westerfield’s own admission, he did not list two other 
federal habeas corpus actions he had filed within the past five years.  After Bracy 
noted this deficiency in her motion to dismiss, Westerfield asked the court to apply 
the rule of lenity to the issue of noncompliance, explaining that he had voluntarily 
dismissed the omitted cases and did not realize he still needed to list them on his 
R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit.  But R.C. 2969.25(A) requires “strict compliance,” 
Steele, 164 Ohio St.3d 540, 2021-Ohio-2073, 173 N.E.3d 1209, at ¶ 7, and the 
statute contains no exception for cases that an inmate has voluntarily dismissed.  
An affidavit that lists some, but not all, prior actions does not comply with R.C. 
2969.25(A).  State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 
408, 2019-Ohio-1271, 128 N.E.3d 193, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 10} For these reasons, Westerfield’s R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit is 
deficient, making his habeas petition subject to dismissal.  Accordingly, we affirm 
the Eleventh District Court of Appeals’ judgment on this basis and need not reach 
the issue whether Westerfield’s petition states a viable claim for relief in habeas 
corpus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, BRUNNER, and DETERS, 
JJ., concur. 
STEWART, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________ 
Jason L. Westerfield, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
5 
General, for appellee. 
_________________