[Cite as Forrest-Bey v. May , 2020-Ohio-3482.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER M. FORREST-BEY, SR. JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Petitione r Hon. Patricia A. Delane y , J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- Case No. 2020 CA 0044 HAROLD MAY Respondent O P I N IO N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Writ of Habeas Corpus

JUDGMENT: Dismissed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 24, 2020

APPEARANCES:

For Petitione r For Responden t CHRISTOPHER M. FORREST-BEY, SR. GARY D. BISHOP A763516 Richland Correctional Institution Richland Count y Prosecutin g Attorne y 1001 Olivesbur g Road 38 S. Park Stree t P.O. Box 8107 Mansfield, Ohio 44902 Mansfield, Ohio 44901Richland Count y , Case No. 2020 CA 0044 2

Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} On May 18, 2020, Petitioner, Christopher M. Forrest-Bey, Sr., f iled a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Harold May, Warden of the Ric hland Correctional Institution. Mr. Forrest-Bey sets forth several grounds in supp ort of his petition and based upon these grounds, he claims he should be released from prison . The grounds asserted by Mr. Forrest-Bey include: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdic tion because of an unsigned warrant; (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over arrest wa rrants issued without any probable cause determination; and (3) the trial court lacked ju risdiction over arrest warrants issued by a clerk who works for the police department. {¶2} Due to the following deficiencies, Mr. Forrest-Bey’s petition i s not sufficient to maintain an action for habeas corpus and his petition is sua sponte dismissed. First, the petition is not verified as required by R.C. 2725.04. The f ailure to verify the petition requires dismissal. State v. Vore , 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 744 N.E.2d 763 (2001); State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. , 82 Ohio St.3d 270, 272, 695 N.E.2d 254 (1998). Second, Mr. Forrest-Bey did not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), wh ich requires a copy of the commitment or cause of detention be attached to the petitio n for writ of habeas corpus. Without the commitment papers, the writ of habeas corpus is fat ally defective. Brown v. Rogers , 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 341, 650 N.E.2d 422 (1995). {¶3} Third, Mr. Forrest-Bey filed an affidavit of indigency, but fai led to include required documentation for his affidavit of indigency in violat ion of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). Section (C)(1) requires a statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate’s account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the instituti onal cashier. The statutory requirements contained in R.C. 2969.25(C) are mandatory and fai lure to comply subjectsRichland Count y , Case No. 2020 CA 0044 3

Mr. Forrest-Bey’s petition to dismissal. Al’Shahid v. Cook, 144 Ohio St.3d 15, 2015-Ohio2079, 40 N.E.3d 1073, ¶ 9. {¶4} For the foregoing reasons, we sua sponte dismiss Mr. Forrest-Be y’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The clerk of courts is hereby direct ed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry up on the journal.

PETITION SUA SPONTE DISMISSED.

COSTS TO PETITIONER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

By: Hoffman, P.J. Delaney, J. and Wise, Earle, J. concur