[Cite as State ex rel. Hunley v. Wainwright, 2021-Ohio-72.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State ex rel. Harold Hunley, : 

 

 Relator, : 

v. : No. 20AP-208 

 

Lyneal Wainwright, Warden, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 

Respondent. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on January 14, 2021 

IN HABEAS CORPUS 

ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL 

BEATTY BLUNT, J. 

{¶ 1} Relator, Harold Hunley, filed this original action requesting this court to 

issue a writ of habeas corpus and issue an order terminating his detention. Hunley is 

incarcerated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") on 

convictions from Franklin County and Stark County. 

{¶ 2} It appears that Hunley is being detained on a combination of sentences from 

six separate cases, three of which are definite sentences from Franklin County, one of 

which is a definite sentence from Stark County, and the other two of which are pre-Senate 

Bill 2 indefinite sentences from Stark County. In Franklin CP. Nos. 07CR-8887, 08CR3191, and 08CR-3192 he is serving concurrent sentences of 6 years for each case, in Stark 

CP. No. 2001CR-0113(B), he is serving a sentence of 6 years; and in Stark CP. Nos. 89-

 

Harold Hunley, pro se. 

 
2 

No. 20AP-208 

9098 and 92-2692, he is serving indefinite sentences of 3 to 15 years in each case. Hunley 

argues that these sentences should have been aggregated concurrently but that ODRC has 

incorrectly aggregated some of them consecutively to extend his incarceration. He 

contends that his maximum aggregate sentence of 30 years expired in March 2019 but 

that he was denied release by the parole board in October 2019, and he was at that time 

ordered to serve the entirety of his remaining sentence with a release date set for February 

2025. 

{¶ 3} Hunley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to this court on April 8, 

2020. No answer was filed by the respondent. Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of 

the Tenth District Court of Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate who issued a 

decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. The magistrate's decision is 

appended hereto. The magistrate determined that because petitioner is incarcerated in 

Marion County but filed his writ of habeas corpus in Franklin County, this court does not 

have jurisdiction over the writ pursuant to R.C. 2725.03 and therefore, recommended this 

court dismiss the petition. No objections to the magistrate's recommendation have been 

filed. Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(4), we review the recommendation for adoption by the 

court. 

{¶ 4} At the time he filed his petition to this court, Hunley was housed by 

respondent Warden Lyneal Wainwright at the Marion Correctional Institution in Marion 

County, Ohio, and he remains detained there. R.C. 2725.03 provides in part that "[i]f a 

person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state benevolent or correctional 

institution, the location of which is fixed by statute and at the time is in the custody of the 

officers of the institution, no court or judge other than the courts or judges of the county 
3 

No. 20AP-208 

in which the institution is located has jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas 

corpus for his production or discharge." (Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 5} In Goudlock v. Vorhiees, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, the Supreme 

Court of Ohio held that an inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly 

dismissed because the inmate filed the petition in a county in which the inmate was not 

incarcerated, contrary to the requirements of the statute. This case involves an identical 

situation, as Hunley has filed his petition for habeas corpus relief in a county where he is 

not confined. For this reason, dismissal of the writ for lack of territorial jurisdiction is 

proper. See also State ex rel. Jefferson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 19AP366, 2019-Ohio-4025, at ¶ 4 (adopting magistrate's decision and dismissing petition for 

lack of territorial jurisdiction where habeas petitioner "incorrectly" filed action in county 

where he was not confined). 

{¶ 6} Upon review of the magistrate's decision and independent review of the 

record, we find the magistrate properly determined the facts and applied the appropriate 

law. We accordingly adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of 

fact and conclusions of law contained therein, and dismiss the relator's petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. 

Action dismissed. 

BROWN and KLATT, JJ., concur. 

_____________ 
4 

No. 20AP-208 

APPENDIX 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 

State ex rel. Harold Hunley, : 

 

 Relator, : 

v. : No. 20AP-208 

 

Lyneal Wainwright, Warden, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 

Respondent. : 

 

M A G I S T R A T E ' S D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on April 15, 2020 

 

Harold Hunley, pro se. 

 

IN HABEAS 

ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL 

{¶ 7} Relator, Harold Hunley, has filed this original action requesting this court 

issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering respondent, Lyneal Wainwright, Warden, at Marion 

Correctional Institution, to immediately release him from incarceration because his 

sentence has expired. 

Findings of Fact: 

{¶ 8} 1. Relator is an inmate currently incarcerated at Marion Correctional 

Institution. 

{¶ 9} 2. Marion Correctional Institution is located in Marion County, Ohio. 
5 

No. 20AP-208 

{¶ 10} 3. The Tenth District Court of Appeals in which relator has filed this petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus is located in Franklin County, Ohio. 

Conclusions of Law: 

 R.C. 2725.03 provides: 

If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state 

benevolent or correctional institution, the location of which is 

fixed by statute and at the time is in the custody of the officers 

of the institution, no court or judge other than the courts or 

judges of the county in which the institution is located has 

jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas corpus for 

his production or discharge. Any writ issued by a court or judge 

of another county to an officer or person in charge at the state 

institution to compel the production or discharge of an inmate 

thereof is void. 

{¶ 11} A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only in 

cases "where there is an unlawful restraint of a person's liberty and no adequate remedy at 

law." Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980. 

{¶ 12} Inasmuch as this court lacks territorial jurisdiction over relator’s habeas 

corpus petition, it is this magistrate's decision that this court sua sponte dismiss his 

complaint. 

 /S/ MAGISTRATE 

 STEPHANIE BISCA 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES 

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as 

error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or 

legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a 

finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), 

unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual 

finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).