[Cite as Kelley v. Gray, 2023-Ohio-3336.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MAHONING COUNTY

WILLIAM L. KELLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID GRAY, WARDEN,

Respondent.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Case No. 23 MA 0078

Writ of Habeas Corpus

BEFORE:

Mark A. Hanni, Cheryl L. Waite, David A. D’Apolito, Judges.

JUDGMENT:

Denied.

William L. Kelley, Pro se, #A560-890, Belmont Correctional Institution, 68518 Bannock 

Road, St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950, Petitioner and

Atty. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General and Atty. William H. Lamb, Assistant Attorney 

General, Criminal Justice Section, 8040 Hosbrook Road, Suite 300, Cincinnati, Ohio 

45236, for Respondent.

Dated: September 14, 2023
– 2 –

Case No. 23 MA 0078

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Petitioner William L. Kelley has filed this original action for a writ of habeas 

corpus seeking his immediate release from the Belmont Correctional Institution (BECI). 

BECI is one of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s prison facilities.

Kelley is a self-represented prison inmate whose petition names the BECI’s warden, 

David Gray, as Respondent. Kelley argues that his conviction was the product of 

prosecutorial misconduct, improper jury instructions, and flawed verdict forms. The 

warden has filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Because we lack jurisdiction 

over Kelley’s petition, we must grant the warden’s motion and dismiss the petition.

{¶2} R.C. 2725.02 grants to this Court the ability to authorize writs of habeas 

corpus. However, R.C. 2725.03 directs that “If a person restrained of his liberty is an 

inmate of a state benevolent or correctional institution, * * * no court or judge other than 

the court or judges of the county in which the institute is located has jurisdiction to issue 

or determine a writ of habeas corpus * * *.” (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court has 

“strictly construed” the language of R.C. 2725.03. State ex rel. Robinson v. Fender, 170 

Ohio St.3d 147, 2022-Ohio-3701, 209 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 5, citing Brown v. Hall, 123 Ohio 

St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-5592, ¶ 1; Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio4787, ¶ 17-18. Thus, of particular relevance here, the Supreme Court has held that even 

though the petition for a writ of habeas corpus reached the same district court of appeals 

it would have had it been filed in the correct county, the court of appeals still lacked 

jurisdiction to determine the merits. Brown v. Hall, 123 Ohio St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-5592,

916 N.E.2d 807, ¶ 1.

{¶3} Kelley is incarcerated in Belmont County, and yet he filed this petition with 

the Mahoning County Clerk of Courts. Although the petition would ultimately reach this 

Court whether filed in Belmont County or Mahoning County, the statute explicitly directs 

that Kelley must file in Belmont County.

{¶4} Accordingly, in consideration of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and this original action in habeas 
– 3 –

Case No. 23 MA 0078

corpus is DISMISSED. Writ denied. Any and all pending motions and unresolved filings 

are hereby dismissed as moot.

{¶5} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Civ.R. 58, that the Clerk of the 

Mahoning County Court of Appeals shall immediately serve upon all parties (including 

unrepresented or self-represented parties) notice of this judgment and its date of entry 

upon the journal. Costs assessed to Petitioner.

JUDGE MARK A. HANNI

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE

JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO