[Cite as State v. Willeke, 2012-Ohio-1755.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MORROW COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Respondent 

-vsJOHN I. WILLEKE 

 Petitioner 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

Case No. 12-CA-1 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 18, 2012 

APPEARANCES: 

Petitioner Respondent 

JOHN I. WILLEKE NO APPEARANCE 

5851 CO RD 9 

Edison, Ohio 43320 
Morrow County, Case No. 12-CA-1 2

Hoffman, J. 

{¶1} Petitioner, John I. Willeke, has filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

alleging unlawful detention based upon his contention that his indictment was defective. 

We find it unnecessary to address the claims raised in the Petition because Petitioner 

has failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a habeas petition. 

{¶2} Petitioner captioned the petition as the “State of Ohio v. John I Willeke.” 

For this reason, Petitioner has failed to name a proper Respondent. See Tate v. 

Bernard (Nov. 21, 2001), Trumbull App. No. 2001–T–0087, 2001 WL 1497206 (“the writ 

will lie only against the individual who is directly responsible for keeping the petitioner in 

custody”); Jackson v. State (Apr. 19, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 81007, 2002 WL 

737495 (dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus appropriate when petitioner 

named the state rather than the sheriff—his custodian as the respondent). 

{¶3} A review of the complaint reveals Petitioner has also failed to attach the 

necessary commitment papers in compliance with R.C. 2725.04(D). 

{¶4} The Supreme Court has held failure to comply with this requirement is a 

fatal defect which cannot be cured, “[C]ommitment papers are necessary for a complete 

understanding of the petition. Without them, the petition is fatally defective. 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, 602 N.E.2d 602. 

{¶5} We find failure to include all pertinent commitment papers has made a 

complete understanding of the petition impossible. 
Morrow County, Case No. 12-CA-1 3

{¶6} We further note a “Court of Appeals [is] required to dismiss [a] petition for 

habeas corpus sua sponte, where defendant failed to verify the petition for habeas 

corpus, support his complaint with an affidavit specifying the details of the claim, attach 

a copy of commitment or cause of detention to petition, name the correct respondent, or 

attach an affidavit describing each civil action or appeal filed by the relator within 

previous five years in any state or federal court. R.C. 2725.04(B, D), 2969.25.” Melton v. 

State 2002 WL 31040689 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.). 

{¶7} The petition filed does not contain an affidavit detailing Petitioner's prior 

civil actions. 

{¶8} Petitioner's failure to include these items requires dismissal of this case. 

By: Hoffman, J. 

Delaney, P.J. and 

Farmer, J. concur 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

 
Morrow County, Case No. 12-CA-1 4

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MORROW COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Respondent : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

JOHN I. WILLEKE : 

 : 

 Petitioner : Case No. 12-CA-1 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Costs to Petitioner. 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER