[Cite as State ex rel. Hall v. Turner, 2019-Ohio-1938.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MARION COUNTY 

 

THE STATE EX REL. 

DAVID HALL, #A256-570, 

 PETITIONER-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 9-19-01 

 v. 

NEIL TURNER, WARDEN, O P I N I O N 

 

 RESPONDENT-APPELLEE. 

 

Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. 2018-CV-0225 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: May 20, 2019 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

David Hall, Appellant 

 Maura O’Neill Jaite for Appellee 
Case No. 9-19-01 

-2- 

PRESTON, J. 

{¶1} Petitioner-appellant, David Hall (“Hall”), appeals the December 4, 

2018 judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus against respondent-appellee, Warden Neil 

Turner (“Turner”) of the North Central Correctional Complex. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm. 

{¶2} This matter originated with Hall’s 1975 conviction on one count of 

murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02. (Doc. No. 1, Petitioner’s Ex. B). In that case, 

Hall was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. (Id.). Hall remained in prison until 

May 25, 1984, at which point he was released on parole. (Doc. No. 1, Petitioner’s 

Ex. D). However, sometime in 1988 or 1989, Hall’s parole was revoked and he was 

returned to prison. (Appellant’s Brief at 2). Hall was paroled again on July 13, 

1990. (Doc. No. 1, Petitioner’s Ex. D). In 1991, while on parole, Hall was indicted 

on one count of felonious assault and one count of kidnapping. State v. Hall, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 63771, 1993 WL 389474, *1 (Sept. 30, 1993). Following a jury 

trial, Hall was convicted of one count of felonious assault and sentenced to 11 to 15 

years in prison. Id. at *3. (See Doc. No. 1, Petitioner’s Ex. A). The Eighth District 

Court of Appeals affirmed Hall’s conviction and sentence for felonious assault. 

Hall at *5. Finally, Hall’s sentences for murder and felonious assault were 
Case No. 9-19-01 

-3- 

aggregated to form a term of 26 years to life in prison. (See Doc. No. 1, Petitioner’s 

Ex. D). 

{¶3} On April 4, 2018, Hall filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against 

Turner in the Marion County Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. No. 1). On June 4, 

2018, Turner filed a motion to dismiss Hall’s petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). (Doc. 

No. 3). Hall filed a memorandum in opposition to Turner’s motion to dismiss on 

June 27, 2018. (Doc. No. 5). 

{¶4} On December 4, 2018, the trial court granted Turner’s motion and 

dismissed Hall’s petition after concluding that Hall failed to attach to his petition a 

copy of all of his commitment papers and that he failed to file with the court an 

affidavit that complied with R.C. 2969.25(A). (Doc. No. 6). 

{¶5} Hall filed a notice of appeal on January 4, 2019. (Doc. No. 7). He 

raises one assignment of error. 

Assignment of Error 

R.C. §2725.01 clearly permits an individual to petition for writ for 

writ [sic] of habeas corpus if his maximum sentence has expired 

and that individual is being held unlawfully. 

{¶6} In his appellate brief, Hall focuses mainly on arguing the merits of his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus instead of advancing arguments attacking the 

trial court’s reasons for dismissing his petition. However, Hall does make passing 

references to “commitment entries” and R.C. 2969.25(A). Thus, we elect to 
Case No. 9-19-01 

-4- 

interpret Hall’s appellate brief as challenging the trial court’s decision to dismiss his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus as being procedurally defective. 

{¶7} “‘A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted tests the sufficiency of the complaint.’” Lloyd v. Robinson, 4th Dist. 

Ross No. 14CA3452, 2014-Ohio-4977, ¶ 10, quoting Volbers-Klarich v. 

Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494, 2010-Ohio-2057, ¶ 11. “‘In order for a 

trial court to dismiss a complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted, it must appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can 

prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to the 

relief sought.’” Id., quoting Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. McKinley, 130 Ohio 

St.3d 156, 2011-Ohio-4432, ¶ 12 and citing Rose v. Cochran, 4th Dist. Ross No. 

11CA3243, 2012-Ohio-1729, ¶ 10. “When a trial court considers a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) 

motion to dismiss, it must review only the complaint, accepting all factual 

allegations contained in the complaint as true and making all reasonable inferences 

in favor of the nonmoving party.” Johnson v. Robinson, 4th Dist. Ross No. 

14CA3460, 2016-Ohio-3366, ¶ 13, citing State ex rel. Talwar v. State Med. Bd. of 

Ohio, 104 Ohio St.3d 290, 2004-Ohio-6410, ¶ 5, Perez v. Cleveland, 66 Ohio St.3d 

397, 399 (1993), and Estate of Sherman v. Millhon, 104 Ohio App.3d 614, 617 (10th 

Dist.1995). “Furthermore, the trial court ‘cannot rely on evidence or allegations 

outside the complaint to determine a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion.’” Id., quoting State 
Case No. 9-19-01 

-5- 

ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206, 207 (1997). “This same standard 

applies in cases involving claims for extraordinary relief, including habeas corpus.” 

Id. at ¶ 14, citing Boles v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 339, 2011-Ohio-5049, ¶ 2. 

{¶8} “‘Appellate courts review de novo a dismissal for the failure to state a 

claim.’” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting Hammond v. Perry, 4th Dist. Hocking No. 12CA27, 

2013-Ohio-3683, ¶ 11, citing Allen v. Bryan, 4th Dist. Hocking No. 12CA15, 2013-

Ohio-1917, ¶ 7 and Bartley v. Hearth & Care of Greenfield, L.L.C., 4th Dist. 

Highland No. 12CA13, 2013-Ohio-279, ¶ 11. “‘In other words, an appellate court 

affords no deference to a trial court’s decision and, instead, applies its own, 

independent review to determine if the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) requirements were 

satisfied.’” Id., quoting Hammond at ¶ 11, citing McDill v. Sunbridge Care Ents., 

Inc., 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 12CA8, 2013-Ohio-1618, ¶ 10 and Estep v. State, 4th 

Dist. Ross No. 09CA3088, 2009-Ohio-4349, ¶ 5. 

{¶9} The procedures for filing petitions for writs of habeas corpus are 

contained in R.C. 2725.04. R.C. 2725.04 provides, in relevant part: 

Application for the writ of habeas corpus shall be by petition, signed 

and verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by 

some person for him, and shall specify: 

* * * 
Case No. 9-19-01 

-6- 

(D) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person 

shall be exhibited, if it can be procured without impairing the 

efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or detention is 

without legal authority, such fact must appear. 

R.C. 2725.04(D). 

[C]ommitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of 

the petition. * * * When a petition is presented to a court that does not 

comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), there is no showing of how the 

commitment was procured and there is nothing before the court on 

which to make a determined judgment except, of course, the bare 

allegations of petitioner’s application. 

Bloss v. Rogers, 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146 (1992). Failure to attach all pertinent 

commitment papers “renders the petition fatally defective and subject to dismissal.” 

Fugett v. Turner, 140 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-1934, ¶ 2, citing Day v. Wilson, 116 

Ohio St.3d 566, 2008-Ohio-82, ¶ 4, citing Tisdale v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 

2007-Ohio-3833, ¶ 6; State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 95 

Ohio St.3d 70, 71 (2002) (upholding the dismissal of Johnson’s petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus because Johnson “did not attach all of his pertinent commitment 

papers”) (Emphasis sic.). 
Case No. 9-19-01 

-7- 

{¶10} The trial court did not err by dismissing Hall’s petition because Hall 

did not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). In this case, a review of the record reveals 

that Hall’s parole was revoked at least once sometime in 1988 or 1989. Yet, Hall 

failed to attach a copy of the 1988 or 1989 decision revoking his parole. “To comply 

with [R.C. 2725.04(D)], an inmate must attach all pertinent papers that caused his 

commitment, including * * * parole-revocation decisions.” State ex rel. Cannon v. 

Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, ¶ 6, citing State ex rel. Finfrock v. 

Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 80 Ohio St.3d 639, 640 (1998). See Dykes v. Miller, 7th 

Dist. Belmont No. 12 BE 1, 2012-Ohio-2473, ¶ 11 (“Since Dykes is asking to be 

released from prison, the parole records * * * are necessary to determine whether 

Dykes is entitled to habeas relief and immediate release from confinement.”). 

Because Hall failed to attach copies of all of his pertinent commitment papers to his 

petition, his petition was fatally defective. Accordingly, the trial court did not err 

by dismissing his petition. 

{¶11} Furthermore, even if Hall had attached copies of all of his relevant 

commitment papers, the trial court would not have erred by dismissing his petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus because he did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(A). R.C. 

2969.25(A) provides: 

At the time that an inmate commences a civil action or appeal against 

a government entity or employee, the inmate shall file with the court 
Case No. 9-19-01 

-8- 

an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal 

of a civil action that the inmate has filed in the previous five years in 

any state or federal court. The affidavit shall include all of the 

following for each of those civil actions or appeals: 

(1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal; 

(2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the civil 

action or appeal was brought; 

(3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal; 

(4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including whether the 

court dismissed the civil action or appeal as frivolous or malicious 

under state or federal law or rule of court, whether the court made an 

award against the inmate or the inmate’s counsel of record for 

frivolous conduct under section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, another 

statute, or a rule of court, and, if the court so dismissed the action or 

appeal or made an award of that nature, the date of the final order 

affirming the dismissal or award. 

“‘“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. Perotti v. Clipper, 

151 Ohio St.3d 132, 2017-Ohio-8134, ¶ 3, quoting State ex rel. McGrath v. 

McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-Ohio-4726, ¶ 1, quoting State ex rel. White 
Case No. 9-19-01 

-9- 

v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, ¶ 5. “R.C. 2969.25(A) * * * [does 

not] permit substantial compliance.” State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 

348, 2008-Ohio-4478, ¶ 4, citing Martin v. Ghee, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP1380, 2002 WL 523000, *3 (Apr. 9, 2002). 

{¶12} Here, Hall attempted to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) by attaching a 

document to his petition disclosing that he had previously filed a complaint in the 

Tenth District Court of Appeals requesting a writ of mandamus. (Doc. No. 1, 

Petitioner’s Ex. CC). See State ex rel. Hall v. Imbrogno, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 

16AP-754, 2018-Ohio-929. However, Hall failed to disclose that he had filed an 

earlier complaint in the Tenth District Court of Appeals requesting a writ of 

mandamus. See State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-588, 2013-

Ohio-5779. Hall filed this earlier request for a writ of mandamus on July 9, 2013, 

which was within the five years preceding the filing of his petition in this case on 

April 4, 2018. See id. at ¶ 8. Furthermore, Hall failed to disclose that he 

unsuccessfully appealed the Tenth District’s dismissal of his request for a writ of 

mandamus to the Supreme Court of Ohio. See State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio 

St.3d 297, 2014-Ohio-3735. Therefore, because Hall failed to strictly comply with 

R.C. 2969.25(A), his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was subject to dismissal. 

Accordingly, the trial court did not err by dismissing Hall’s petition. 

{¶13} Hall’s assignment of error is overruled. 
Case No. 9-19-01 

-10- 

{¶14} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the 

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 Judgment Affirmed 

ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur. 

/jlr