[Cite as Robinson v. Fender , 2020-Ohio-983.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO

JACKIE N. ROBINSON, : PER CURIAM OPINION Petitione r , : CASE NO. 2019- A -0084 - vs - : D. FENDER, WARDEN, : Respondent. :

Ori g inal Action for Writ of Habeas Corpus Jud g ment: Petition dismissed.

Dave Yost , Ohio Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught , Assistant Attorney General, 150 East Ga y Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215 ( For Petitione r )

. Jackie Robinson , pro se, A554-458, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, 501 Tho mpson Road, P.O. Box 8000, Conneaut, Ohio 44030 ( For Respondent )

.

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Petitioner, Jackie N. Robinson, seeks a writ of habeas corpus c ompelling his immediate release from the Lake Erie Correctional Instituti on. His petition asserts that he is incarcerated pursuant to June 1979 convictions in th e Summit County Court of Common Pleas and that these convictions are void because: (1) t wo of the three consecutive sentences imposed were unlawfully enhanced; and (2) there was impropriety in the bindover that deprived the sentencing court of jurisdiction. Respondent, Warden Douglas Fender, moves to dismiss arguing the petition fails to2 state a claim for relief. {¶2} In 1976, petitioner was convicted of burglary, a second-degree felony. R.C. 2911.12. He was sentenced to an indefinite prison term of two to fifteen years. {¶3} After release from prison petitioner was found guilty of aggrav ated robbery, carrying a concealed weapon, and having a weapon under disability in his second Summit County case. In June 1979, he was sentenced to t hree indefinite prison terms consecutive to each other and to his remaining 1976 sente nce. {¶4} Appellant alleges that because burglary is not an offense of vi olence, he was not subject to, but received, enhanced sentences for carryi ng a concealed weapon and having a weapon under disability and that those sentences a re therefore void. {¶5} From before his 1976 conviction, when he committed the crimes enhanced, and at sentencing in 1979, burglary was deemed an enh ancing offense of violence. R.C. 2901.01(I); State v. McCain , 48 Ohio Misc. 13, 15, 357 N.E.2d 420 (C.P.1976). {¶6} Given that, petitioner fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Civ.R. 12(B)(6). {¶7} Petitioner also asserts that the sentencing court lacked jurisd iction to proceed with the 1979 criminal case because the bindover proced ure was flawed. However, this issue is not properly before us because petitione r failed to attach his bindover papers to his petition as required. R.C. 2725.04(D). {¶8} “[A] habeas petitioner is required to file all pertinent commitment papers along with the petition. R.C. 2725.04(D). Attaching only some o f the paperwork is insufficient. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr ., 95 Ohio St.3d 70, 713 (2002). If any of the required commitment papers is not include d with the petition, it is defective. Id. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that the commitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the petition. Bloss v. Rogers , 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146 (1992). Further, the failure to file all commitment pa pers with the petition cannot be cured by subsequent filing. Boyd v. Money , 82 Ohio St.3d 388, 389 (1998). “As this court stated in State ex rel. Cruz v. Sloan , 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2014-A0032, 2014-Ohio-5180, ¶ 12: ‘Without the full scope of relator' s commitment papers, it would be impossible for us to fully understand the petition. Du e to this defect, the petition must be dismissed.’” State ex rel. Menton v. Sloan , 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2017-A-0021, 2017-Ohio-7661, ¶12. When a bindover is at issue, the bindover entry must be attached to the petition to satisfy R.C. 2925.04(D). Goudlock v. Voorhies , 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, 894 N.E.2d 682, ¶ 14. {¶9} Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is d ismissed.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., MATT LYNCH , J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., conc ur.