[Cite as Bradley v. Hooks, 2017-Ohio-4105.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ROSS COUNTY 

LARRY WAYNE BRADLEY, : 

 : Case No. 16CA3576 

Petitioner-Appellant, : 

 : 

vs. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT 

: ENTRY 

MARK HOOKS, WARDEN, : 

 : 

Respondent-Appellee. : Released: 05/26/17 

_____________________________________________________________ 

APPEARANCES: 

Larry Wayne Bradley, Chillicothe, Ohio, Pro Se Appellant. 

Michael DeWine, Attorney General of Ohio, and Stephanie Watson, 

Principal Assistant Attorney General of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, for 

Appellee. 

_____________________________________________________________ 

McFarland, J. 

{¶1} This is an appeal from a Ross County Court of Common Pleas 

judgment entry granting Appellee, Mark Hooks, Warden's, motion to 

dismiss Appellant, Larry Wayne Bradley's, petition for habeas corpus. On 

appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court's grant of Appellee’s Civ.R. 

12(B)(6) motion to dismiss and thus the denial of his petition. Because 

Appellant’s petition for habeas corpus fails on both procedural and 

substantive grounds, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in granting 

Appellee’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion for dismissal for failure to state a claim. 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 2

As such, the arguments raised by Appellant on appeal are without merit. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

FACTS 

{¶2} On June 27, 2016, Appellant, Larry Wayne Bradley, filed a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Ross County Court of Common 

Pleas alleging that he was being illegally confined and restrained by Mark 

Hooks, Warden of the Ross Correctional Institution, in connection with 

convictions and sentences entered by the Jackson County Court of Common 

Pleas and the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas. He further alleged in 

his petition that his imprisonment and detention was without legal authority 

as his plea agreements which resulted in his convictions were not within the 

subject matter jurisdictions of either court. He argued he was entitled to 

immediate release as a result. Although Appellant attached a sworn affidavit 

verifying the truth of the statement contained in his petition, he failed to 

attach copies of his commitment papers from the Jackson and Scioto County 

Courts.1

 Thus, we have very limited information regarding Appellant’s 

procedural history and the convictions of which he is complaining. 

{¶3} Because the information accompanying Appellant’s petition is 

severely lacking, we take judicial notice of the information provided on the 

 

1

 He also failed to attach an affidavit describing each civil action or appeal filed within the previous five 

years. He likewise failed to attach a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in 

his private account for each of the preceding six months. 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 3

Ohio Department of Corrections webpage, which indicates that Appellant is 

currently incarcerated for a first degree felony aggravated robbery 

conviction that occurred in Scioto County, as well as a fourth degree felony 

receiving stolen property conviction that occurred in Jackson County, and 

that his scheduled date of release from prison is not until November 25, 

2018.2

 We further take judicial notice of a prior decision issued by this 

Court with respect to a previous petition for habeas corpus filed by 

Appellant in the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas, which set forth the 

facts regarding Appellant’s Scioto county conviction and incarceration 

history as follows: 

“In December 2009, Bradley was indicted by the Scioto County 

Grand Jury on charges of Aggravated Robbery, Robbery, 

Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Robbery and/or Robbery, 

Kidnapping (two counts), and Tampering with Evidence. The 

indictment included a firearm specification and a vehicle 

forfeiture specification. Eventually, the State dismissed the 

Conspiracy charge, and Bradley pleaded not guilty to all counts 

of the indictment. However, on January 5, 2010, Bradley 

changed his plea, and entered a plea of guilty to the Aggravated 

Robbery charge and forfeiture specification. The remaining 

counts of the indictment were dismissed. Bradley was 

ultimately sentenced to serve nine years in prison, with three of 

those years being mandatory. The sentencing entry, filed on 

January 6, 2010, indicates that ‘[t]his [was] an agreed sentence 

pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.08(D).’ 

 

2

 Both trial courts and appellate courts can take judicial notice of filings readily accessible from a court's 

website. State v. Wright, 4th Dist. Scioto Nos. 15CA3705, 15CA3706, 2016-Ohio-7795, FN. 3; citing In re 

Helfrich, 5th Dist. Licking No. 13CA20, 2014-Ohio-1933, ¶ 35; State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 

Ohio St.3d 195, 2007-Ohio-4798, 974 N.E.2d 516, ¶ 8, 10 (court can take judicial notice of judicial 

opinions and public records accessible from the internet). 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 4

Bradley did not file a direct appeal of his conviction and 

sentence. However, in the six plus years since his guilty plea 

and imposition of sentence, Bradley has caused a deluge of 

post-conviction motions and other documents to be filed with 

the trial court. His most recent filings include, inter alia, a 

motion for judicial release filed on December 12, 2014, and a 

pro se petition to discharge filed on September 17, 2015. The 

trial court denied the motion for judicial release on April 8, 

2015. Bradley appealed the denial of his motion for judicial 

release to this Court; and we dismissed his appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction concluding that a trial court's denial of a motion for 

judicial release is not a final appealable order. See State v. 

Bradley, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 15CA3698 (Decision and 

Judgment Entry filed on August 18, 2015).” State v. Bradley, 

4th Dist. Scioto No. 15CA3721, 2016-Ohio-3245, ¶ 2-3. 

In that decision, we construed Appellant’s petition for discharge as a petition 

for habeas corpus and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, based upon the 

fact that the petition was filed in a county other than where Appellant was 

incarcerated. Id. at ¶ 1; citing R.C. 2725.03; Brown v. Hall, 123 Ohio St.3d 

381, 2009-Ohio-5592, 916 N.E.2d 807, ¶ 1. However, before doing so, we 

noted that Appellant argued “that his now deceased twin brother, named 

Larry W. Bradley, was the actual perpetrator of the crimes.” Id. at ¶ 6. We 

further noted Appellant’s argument “that his identity has been mistaken and 

that his petition should have been granted because his conviction is unlawful 

due to insufficient evidence, and because he was denied effective assistance 

of counsel throughout the pre-trial process.” Id. 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 5

{¶4} A review of Appellant’s filings in the Ross County Court of 

Common Pleas and now on appeal indicates Appellant filed the underlying 

petition for habeas corpus in Ross County in response to our decision that 

the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas did not have jurisdiction to 

consider his petition, as he was incarcerated in Ross County. In response, 

Appellee, Warden Mark Hooks, filed a motion to dismiss Appellant’s 

petition, citing procedural as well as substantive deficiencies, and noting 

Appellant’s maximum sentence had not yet expired. Appellant filed a pro se 

response to Appellee’s motion to dismiss, expanding his arguments to 

include a reference to a twin brother who he claims was actually the 

individual who committed the crimes to which Appellant was convicted and 

sentenced. Appellant also filed a separate pleading entitled “Plaintiff’s Pro 

Se Motion to Dismiss Indictment,” which again made allegations regarding 

his twin brother, as well as ineffective assistance of counsel and corruption 

by Scioto County government officials. 

{¶5} On October 17, 2016, the Ross County Court of Common Pleas 

granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss, thereby dismissing Appellant’s 

petition for habeas corpus. The trial court cited Appellant’s failure to attach 

his commitment papers, as well as the fact that his maximum sentence had 

not expired in support of its decision, and in doing so rejected Appellant’s 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 6

assertion that the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas lacked subject 

matter jurisdiction over the underlying matter. With respect to Appellant’s 

remaining pro se motion to dismiss indictment, finding it had no jurisdiction 

to dismiss a Scioto County indictment not properly before it, the trial court 

denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss. It is from this decision and entry 

Appellant now brings his appeal, setting forth the following assignments of 

error for our review. 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶6} Appellant's brief is difficult, at best, to decipher. However, it 

appears Appellant sets forth the following "Proposition of Law #1" as an 

assignment of error: 

 "THE TRAIL COURTS ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING THE 

 INTRODUCTION OF LARRY W BRADLEY THE 

 INTRODUCTION TO QUESTION AND RESOLVES THE 

 ISSUES OF AND ABOUT POLICE ARRESTING THE 

 WRONG PERSON AS TO LARRY W. BRADLEY ABOUT 

 CASE#09-CR-0170 OUT OF JACKSON OHIO COURT OF 

 COMMON PLEAS.OR CASE # 09CR1174 OF A ROBBERY IN 

 VIOLATION OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE AND THE 

 FEDERAL AND OHIO CONSTITUTION PROTCTION OF DUE 

 PROCESS OF LAW AND FUNDMENTALS FAIRNESS EQUAL 

 PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS TO {A} COMPLETE DEFENSE 

 AT A PRETRAIL OR TRAIL ON EACH CASE #S." [SIC] 

Appellant's brief contains another section entitled "Designation Setting For 

Assignment Errors To Re= 16-CI-297= Now Appeal# 16-CA-003576" 

which appears to list additional assignments of error. They are as follows: 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 7

 "1. IM NOT LARRY W. BRADLEY. 

 2 THAT A DIED PERSON NAME. 

 3 THAT A DIED PERSON SIGNER ON EACH CASE # 09 CR 

 0170 AND 09 CR 1174 TO = # 619-185 PRISON #. 

 4 THE 4TH APPEALS JUDGE TOLD ME =LARRY WAYNE 

 BRADLEY TO GO TO ROSS COUNTY COURTS FOR THIS 

 CASE #16-CI-297 THAT NOW = 16-CA003576 ON APPEAL. 

 BECAUSE OF THE TRUE FACTS IS THE OFFICER MR. 

 MARK HOOKS IS BY WHOM LARRY WAYNE BRADLEY IS 

 BEANING RESTRAINED AND CONFINED BY. 

 5 I'M A LIVING PERSON AND NOT THE PERSON THAT BEEN 

 DIED OVER 5YRS NOW BY LAW 

 6 LARRY W BRADLEY DIED IN THE YEAR 2011 NOVBER, 13 

 7 I LARRY WAYNE BRADLEY HAVE THE RIGHTS TO RULE 

 44A. 

 8 HOW CAN A DIED PERSON BE STILL IN ROSS PRISON IF 

 HE DIED OVER 5 YR. AGO ITS 2016 YRS." [SIC] 

LEGAL ANALYSIS 

{¶7} As set forth above, the purported assignments of error raised by 

Appellant are difficult to decipher. The arguments contained in Appellant's 

brief are not only difficult to decipher, but they are somewhat unintelligible. 

However, taking Appellant's brief as a whole, in conjunction with a review 

of his original petition for habeas corpus filed in the trial court, it appears 

Appellant believes he is entitled to immediate release from prison based 

upon his claims that the Jackson and Scioto County trial courts did not have 

subject matter jurisdiction over his criminal cases. He also seems to allege 

that he had a twin brother, "Larry W. Bradley," who is allegedly now 

deceased, who Appellant claims is the person actually guilty of the crimes 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 8

for which he was convicted and for which he is now currently imprisoned. 

Appellant repeatedly refers to himself as "Larry Wayne Bradley" as opposed 

to "Larry W. Bradley," which he claims was his now deceased twin brother's 

name. That being said, we construe Appellants' arguments as a general 

challenge to the trial court's decision granting Appellee's motion to dismiss 

Appellant's petition for habeas corpus. 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

{¶8} “A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted tests the sufficiency of the complaint.” Volbers–Klarich 

v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494, 2010-Ohio-2057, 929 N.E.2d 

434, ¶ 11. In order for a 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. Ohio Bur. Of 

Workers' Comp. v. McKinley, 130 Ohio St.3d 156, 2011-Ohio-4432, 956 

N.E.2d 814, ¶ 12; 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. State ex rel. Talwar v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 9

104 Ohio St.3d 290, 2004-Ohio-6410, 819 N.E.2d 654, ¶ 5; Perez v. 

Cleveland, 66 Ohio St.3d 397, 399, 613 N.E.2d 199 (1993); Estate of 

Sherman v. Millhon, 104 Ohio App.3d 614, 617, 662 N.E.2d 1098 (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.” 

State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206, 207, 680 N.E.2d 985 

(1997). 

{¶9} This same standard applies in cases involving claims for 

extraordinary relief, including habeas corpus. Boles v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 

339, 2011-Ohio-5049, 958 N.E.2d 554, ¶ 2 (“Dismissal under Civ.R. 

12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim was warranted because after all factual 

allegations of Boles's petition were presumed to be true and all reasonable 

inferences therefrom were made in his favor, it appeared beyond doubt that 

he was not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in habeas corpus”). 

“Appellate courts review de novo a dismissal for the failure to state a claim.” 

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; 

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, 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 10

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

satisfied.” Hammond at ¶ 11; citing McDill v. Sunbridge Care Ents., Inc., 

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

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

HABEAS CORPUS 

{¶10} Habeas corpus petitions are governed by R.C. 2725. They are 

available to a person who is “unlawfully restrained of his liberty * * * to 

inquire into the cause of such imprisonment, restraint, or deprivation.” R.C. 

2725.01. An individual may petition for a writ of habeas corpus if his 

maximum sentence has expired and he is being held unlawfully. State v. 

Wilburn, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 98CA47, 1999 WL 1281507 (Dec. 22, 

1999); Frazier v. Strickrath, 42 Ohio App.3d 114, 115-116, 536 N.E.2d 

1193 (4th Dist.1988). 

{¶11} A habeas corpus petition must conform to certain statutory 

requirements. It must be signed and verified, and it must specify: (A) that 

the petitioner is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty; (B) the name of the 

person restraining the petitioner, if known; (C) the place the petitioner is 

imprisoned or restrained, if known; and (D) it must include a copy of the 

commitment papers, if the commitment papers can be obtained without 

impairing the efficiency of the remedy. R.C. 2725.04. A petitioner's failure 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 11

to attach all pertinent commitment papers renders the petition fatally 

defective. See Tucker v. McAninch, 82 Ohio St.3d 423, 696 N.E.2d 595 

(affirming this court's dismissal of a habeas corpus petition where petitioner 

did not attach all the relevant commitment papers); Workman v. Shiplevy, 80 

Ohio St.3d 174, 685 N.E.2d 231; Bloss v. Rogers, 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 

602 N.E.2d 602 (1992). Because Appellant failed to include a copy of his 

commitment papers, his habeas corpus petition is fatally flawed and must be 

dismissed. 

{¶12} Additionally, the failure to comply with the provisions of R.C. 

2969.25 requires the dismissal of the action. Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio 

St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982. R.C. 2969.25(A)(1)-(4) 

requires that an inmate who files a civil action or appeal against a 

government entity or employee must file an affidavit that contains a 

description of each civil action or appeal the inmate has filed in the previous 

five years. This Court is aware Appellant has filed at least one prior habeas 

corpus action, as evidenced by our decision in State v. Bradley, supra, as 

referenced above; however, Appellant has not filed such an affidavit. As a 

result, his petition is procedurally defective on this ground as well and must 

be dismissed. State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 493, 2006-
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 12

Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842; Nedea v. Cook, 4th Dist. Hocking No. 15CA12, 

2015-Ohio-3668, ¶ 10. 

{¶13} R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) further requires inmates who file civil 

actions or appeals against a government entity or employee, and who seek 

waivers of the prepayment of the full filing fees assessed by the court, shall 

file with the complaint or notice of appeal an affidavit that the inmate is 

seeking a waiver of the prepayment of the court's full filing fees as well as 

an affidavit of indigency. Washington v. Morgan, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 

14CA3664, 2014-Ohio-5834, ¶ 9. These affidavits must include a statement 

that sets forth the balance in the inmate's account for each of the preceding 

six months, and must be certified by the institutional cashier. Id.; citing 

Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2859, 951 N.E.2d 389 (court 

of appeals did not err in dismissing inmate's petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus because inmate must include a statement setting forth the balance in 

his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the 

institutional cashier); State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 

511, 2010-Ohio-4726, 935 N.E.2d 830; State ex rel. Thacker v. Evans, 4th 

Dist. Gallia No. 05CA4, 2005-Ohio-933. Here, Appellant filed an affidavit 

of indigency averring he was without sufficient funds to pay the required 

costs and fees of the habeas action; however, he did not file a certified 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 13

statement setting forth a six month history of his inmate account. This 

failure also constitutes sufficient reason to deny the petition for habeas 

corpus. State v. Pinkney, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104845, 2016-Ohio-7619, 

¶ 4. 

{¶14} In addition to the procedural defects, Appellant's petition must 

be dismissed on substantive grounds. First, to the extent he claims that he 

was wrongly convicted instead of his twin brother in both Jackson and 

Scioto Common Pleas courts, or that his convictions were supported by 

insufficient evidence, these claims could have been raised on direct appeal. 

Because he had an adequate remedy at law, habeas corpus is not an available 

remedy. Lynch v. Wilson, 114 Ohio St.3d 118, 119, 2007-Ohio-3254, 868 

N.E.2d 982, 983, ¶¶ 5-6 (2007)(“Lynch's claim that there was insufficient 

evidence to support his conviction and sentence for engaging in a pattern of 

corrupt activity is not cognizable in habeas corpus.”). “[H]abeas corpus is 

not available to remedy claims concerning * * * the sufficiency of the 

evidence.” State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 2006-Ohio6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4. See also Caudill v. Brigano, 100 Ohio St.3d 37, 

2003–Ohio–4777, 795 N.E.2d 674, ¶ 3 (applying general rule to habeas 

corpus petition challenging convictions and sentence for several crimes, 

including engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity). Further, because it 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 14

appears from the record that Appellant actually pleaded guilty to the charges 

against him in both Jackson and Scioto counties, he stipulated to the 

sufficiency of the evidence that it was he, not his twin brother, who 

committed the crimes. Thus, Appellant's petition must be dismissed 

because he is not entitled to seek the extraordinary remedy of a writ of 

habeas corpus to address what he claims is essentially an insufficiency of 

evidence to support the trial court's finding of guilt on the charges at issue. 

{¶15} Second, Appellant seems to argue, although not clearly, that the 

trial courts in Jackson and Scioto counties were without subject-matter 

jurisdiction over him and these matters. Aside from stating such in his 

underlying petition Appellant makes no real argument as to why he believes 

these trial courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. He further argues he is 

entitled to immediate release from prison. As stated previously, Appellant 

has failed to file his commitment papers, which is a requirement when 

pursuing a habeas corpus action. Thus, we have a limited picture of 

Appellant's procedural history. However, taking judicial notice of a prior 

decision by this Court, as well as the Ohio Department of Corrections 

webpage, it appears that Appellant is currently incarcerated for a first degree 

felony aggravated robbery conviction that occurred in Scioto County, as well 

as a fourth degree felony receiving stolen property conviction that occurred 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 15

in Jackson County. According to the Ohio Department of Corrections 

webpage, Appellant's scheduled date of release from prison is not until 

November 25, 2018. "It is well established that a prisoner has no 

constitutional or statutory right to be conditionally released from prison prior 

to the expiration of his sentence." Johnson v. Robinson, 4th Dist. Ross No. 

14CA3460, 2016-Ohio-3366, ¶ 25; citing Corrin v. Huffman, 4th Dist. 

Scioto No. 00CA2700, 2000 WL 1234068, *4 (Aug. 25, 2000). 

{¶16} Likewise, " '[i]t is well-established that a common pleas court 

has original jurisdiction in felony cases and its jurisdiction in invoked by the 

return of an indictment.' " State v. Bradford, 4th Dist. Ross No. 08CA3053, 

2009-Ohio-1864, ¶ 18; quoting State v. Hillman, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 

06AP-1230, 07AP-728, 2008-Ohio-2341, ¶ 41; citing Click v. Eckle, 174 

Ohio St. 88, 89, 186 N.E.2d 731 (1962); see also R.C. 2931.03. There is 

simply no credible evidence in the record to suggest that Appellant was not 

the actual defendant named in the indictments, or for that matter, the actual 

defendant who pleaded guilty to the charges at issue. As such, because 

Appellant was the individual named in the indictments, he was subject to the 

jurisdiction of both the Jackson and Scioto County Courts of Common Pleas. 

{¶17} Thus, because Appellant's petition for habeas corpus failed on 

both procedural and substantive grounds, we find no merit to the arguments 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 16

raised on appeal and we further conclude the trial court did not err in 

granting Appellee's motion to dismiss the petition. Accordingly, the trial 

court’s judgment is affirmed. 

 JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 
Ross App. No. 16CA3576 17

JUDGMENT ENTRY 

It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and costs be 

assessed to Appellant. 

 The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing 

the Ross County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. 

 IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE 

UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL 

COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to 

exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a 

continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio 

an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If 

a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the 

expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a 

notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the forty-five day appeal 

period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme 

Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the 

appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date 

of such dismissal. 

 A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to 

Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Harsha, J. & Abele, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion. 

For the Court, 

 BY: ______________________________ 

 Matthew W. McFarland, Judge 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final 

judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from 

the date of filing with the clerk.