Title: Crase v. Bradshaw

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Crase v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-663.] 
 
 
CRASE, APPELLANT, v. BRADSHAW, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Crase v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-663.] 
Habeas corpus sought to compel relator’s release from confinement — Complaint 
in habeas corpus dismissed as moot when relator is released from 
confinement prior to hearing. 
 (No. 2005-1687 — Submitted January 25, 2006 — Decided March 1, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 05-CA-71. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus. 
{¶ 2} In July 2005, appellant, Gregory Crase, then an inmate at 
Mansfield Correctional Institution, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for 
Richland County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison 
warden, to release him from prison.  Crase claimed that the Ohio Adult Parole 
Authority had unlawfully extended his release date from July 2005 to October 
2005.  The warden moved to dismiss the petition. 
{¶ 3} In August 2005, the court of appeals dismissed Crase’s petition.  
The court of appeals concluded that Crase’s petition was fatally defective because 
he did not comply with the R.C. 2725.04(D) requirement to attach commitment 
papers to the petition. 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Crase asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his petition.  For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal 
as moot. 
{¶ 5} “ ‘[H]abeas corpus in Ohio is generally appropriate in the criminal 
context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or some 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
type of physical confinement.’ ”  Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309, 2005-Ohio-
5125, 835 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 13, quoting State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene (1998), 84 
Ohio St.3d 165, 167, 702 N.E.2d 423.  “If a habeas corpus petitioner seeking 
release is subsequently released, the petitioner’s habeas corpus claim is normally 
rendered moot.”  Larsen v. State (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 69, 69-70, 748 N.E.2d 72, 
citing Pewitt v. Lorain Correctional Inst. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 470, 472, 597 
N.E.2d 92.  Crase’s appeal is moot because his sentence has now expired and he 
has been released from prison. 
{¶ 6} Moreover, this is not a claim that is “capable of repetition, yet 
evading review.”  Spencer v. Kemna (1998), 523 U.S. 1, 17, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 
L.Ed.2d 43; Larsen, 92 Ohio St.3d at 70, 748 N.E.2d 72. 
{¶ 7} Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as moot. 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Gregory Crase, pro se. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Price, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________