Title: Arroyo v. Sloan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Arroyo v. Sloan, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2081.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2081 
THE STATE EX REL. ARROYO, APPELLANT, v. SLOAN, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Arroyo v. Sloan, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2081.] 
Habeas corpus—R.C. 2725.04(D)—Failure to attach commitment papers is fatal 
to a habeas petition—Requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) are 
mandatory—Habeas corpus is not available to challenge the validity of a 
charging document. 
(No. 2014-1695—Submitted March 10, 2015—Decided June 4, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, No. 2014-A-0037, 
2014-Ohio-3770. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals 
dismissing petitioner-appellant Flor Arroyo’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
because of the numerous procedural and other deficiencies in his petition. 
Supreme Court of Ohio 
 
2
{¶ 2} Arroyo was convicted and sentenced in the Cuyahoga County Court 
of Common Pleas and is now imprisoned at the Lake Erie Correctional Institution.  
He filed an action in habeas corpus in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, 
alleging that the court in his criminal case lacked subject-matter jurisdiction 
because the indictment failed to establish that the crimes of which he was 
convicted had occurred in Cuyahoga County.  The court of appeals dismissed the 
petition, and Arroyo appealed. 
{¶ 3} The court of appeals correctly dismissed Arroyo’s petition based on 
its numerous procedural and other deficiencies.  First, Arroyo failed to attach any 
commitment papers to his petition, in violation of R.C. 2725.04(D).  Such a 
failure is fatal to a petition for habeas corpus.  State ex rel. McCuller v. Callahan, 
98 Ohio St.3d 307, 2003-Ohio-858, 784 N.E.2d 108, ¶ 4, citing State ex rel. 
Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 95 Ohio St.3d 70, 71, 765 N.E.2d 356 
(2002), Malone v. Lane, 96 Ohio St.3d 415, 2002-Ohio-4908, 775 N.E.2d 527, at 
¶ 6, and Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 328, 744 N.E.2d 763 (2001).  
Attaching the indictment to the complaint is insufficient to satisfy the statute, 
because the indictment is merely a charge of wrongdoing and fails to demonstrate 
how the commitment was procured.  See McBroom v. Dallman, 12th Dist. Warren 
No. CA93-03-029, 1993 WL 512372, at *2 (Dec. 13, 1993), citing Bloss v. 
Rogers, 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602 (1992). 
{¶ 4} Second, Arroyo did not provide a statement that sets forth the 
balance of his inmate account for the preceding six months, as required by R.C. 
2969.25(C)(1).  The requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C) are mandatory, and failure 
to comply with them subjects the complaint to dismissal.  Hazel v. Knab, 130 
Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378, ¶ 1. 
{¶ 5} Third, as the court of appeals correctly pointed out, “[h]abeas corpus 
is not available to challenge the validity of a charging instrument.” McGee v. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
Sheldon, 132 Ohio St.3d 89, 2012-Ohio-2217, 969 N.E.2d 262, ¶ 1, citing Shroyer 
v. Banks, 123 Ohio St.3d 88, 2009-Ohio-4080, 914 N.E.2d 368, ¶ 1. 
{¶ 6} Finally, the indictment does state that Arroyo committed his 
offenses in Cuyahoga County. 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 
dismissing Arroyo’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
Flor Arroyo, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Stephanie Watson, Principal 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
_______________________