[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Farley v. Wainwright , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-670.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O

. 2021-O HIO -670

F ARLEY , A PPELLANT , v . W AINWRIGHT , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE

. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it

may be cited as Farley v. Wainwright , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-670.] Habeas corpus—Inmate’s claims not cognizable in habeas corpus—Court of appeals’ judgment dismi ssing petition affirmed. (No. 2020-0459—Submitted Janua ry 26, 2021—Decided March 11, 202 1.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals fo r Marion County, No. 9-19-84.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} In 2019, appellant, James R. Farle y, filed a petition for a wri t of habeas corpus in the Third District Court of Appeals alleging t hat he is entitled to immediate release from prison b ecause the Department of Rehabil itation and Correction (“DRC”) and the Bureau of Sentence Computation (“BSC ”) failed to update their records after he was resentenced in 2000. The Thi rd District dismissed the petition. We affirm.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Background {¶ 2} In 1996, Farley was convicted of aggravated murder and sentence d to life in prison, with parole eligib ility after 20 years. A few months after Farley was sentenced, the trial court issued a corrected sentencing entry imposing a life sentence, with parole eligibility after 20 “full years.” That designation prevented Farley from earning good-time credit, which can make an offende r eligible for parole before he serves his full minimum term. See State v. Farley , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 96APA09-1247, 1997 WL 401947, *3-4 (July 15, 1997) . On direct appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court had erred in imposing a term of 20 “full years” and remanded the case for re sentencing. Id . In 2000, the trial court reimposed Far ley’s original sentence. {¶ 3} In December 2019, Farley filed a petition asking the Third Dist rict Court of Appeals to issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering appe llee, Lyneal Wainwright, warden of the Marion Correctional Institution, to i mmediately release him from custody. Farley alleged that DRC and BSC failed to re move the “full years” designation from their records until 2018 and that as a result, he was deprived of the opportunity to earn good-time credit and the po ssibility to be considered for pa role earlier. {¶ 4} The Third District dismissed Fa rley’s petition. The court firs t held that Farley had failed to attach all pertinent commitment paper s to his petition as required under R.C. 2725.04(D). T he court went on to conclude that Farley’s petition failed to state a cogniza ble habeas claim because he h ad not alleged facts showing that he is entitled to immediate release from prison. {¶ 5} Farley appealed to this court as of right. We dismissed the ap peal for want of prosecution after Farley failed to timely file a merit brief. 159 Ohio St.3d 1409, 2020-Ohio-3255, 146 N.E.3d 585. But we later granted Far ley’s motion for reconsideration and reinstated the appeal. 159 Ohio St.3d 1522 , 2020-Ohio-4388,

152 N.E.3d 328.January Term, 2021

3 Analysis Farley provided his commitment papers with his petition {¶ 6} When filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a person ge nerally must provide “[a] copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person.” R.C. 2725.04(D). A petition that fails to comply with this req uirement is defective

and must be dismissed. Bloss v. Rogers , 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 145-146, 602 N.E.2d 602 (1992). The Third District he ld that Farley’s petition was defective under R.C. 2725.04(D) because he did not provide a copy of his 2000 senten cing entry when he filed his petition. {¶ 7} The Third District was wrong—Farley attached the 2000 sentencin g entry to his complaint as “Exhibit 6.” The Third District may not have realized that Farley refiled Exhibit 6 in response to Wainwright’s argument in her motion t o dismiss that she had not received a copy of the entry when she was served with Farley’s petition. The Third District interpreted Farley’s lat er filing as an impermissible attempt to cure a defect, but there was no defect that needed to be

cured. We therefore do not affirm on this basis. Farley is not entitled to immediate release {¶ 8} A writ of habeas corpus “is warranted in certain extraordinary circumstances ‘where there is an unlawful restraint of a person ’s liberty and there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.’ ” Johnson v. TimmermanCooper , 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 616, 757 N.E.2d 1153 (2001), quoting Pegan v.

Crawmer , 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 99, 666 N.E.2d 1091 (1996). The writ is ap propriate if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Smirnoff

v. Greene , 84 Ohio St.3d 165, 167, 702 N.E.2d 423 (1998). We review the Third District’s judgment dismissing Farley’s petition de novo. Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford , 103 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-4362, 814 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 5. {¶ 9} Farley argues that DRC and BSC violated his due-process rights by failing to properly apply his sentence and therefore allow him to earn good-timeS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 credit. He contends that as a result of that error, he served a sentence that was contrary to law for more than 20 years. The Third District cor rectly concluded that Farley’s allegations do not state a claim that is cognizable in habeas corpus. {¶ 10} Farley does not allege that his life sentence is invalid. In f act, he alleges that the sentence impos ed in 2000 should be enforced. Thus, even when taken as true, Farley’s allega tions do not show that he is enti tled to release from prison. Ultimately, Farley complains about a lost opportunity to earn good-time credit and the possibility that he could have been eligible for parole sooner, “[b]ut earlier consideration of parole is not tantamount to a legal ri ght to release from prison,” Heddleston v. Mack , 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 214, 702 N.E.2d 1198 (1998). “Ohio law gives a convicted inm ate ‘no legitimate claim of enti tlement to parole prior to the expiration of a va lid sentence of imprisonment.’ ” State ex rel. Richard

v. Mohr , 135 Ohio St.3d 373, 2013-Ohio-1471, 987 N.E.2d 650, ¶ 5, quot ing State

ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson , 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 490, 633 N.E.2d 1128 (1994). {¶ 11} There appears to be no dispute that DRC and BSC made a mistake concerning Farley’s sentence. But “[h]abeas corpus is not the proper remedy to address every concern a prisoner has about his legal rights or status.” Rodgers v. Capots , 67 Ohio St.3d 435, 436, 619 N.E.2d 685 (1993). “[H]abeas cor pus is generally available only when the petitioner’s maximum sentence has expired and he is being held unlawfully.” Heddleston at 214. Because Farley is serving a valid life sentence, he is not entitled to immediate release and has failed to state a claim cognizable in habeas corpus. {¶ 12} We affirm the Third District’s judgment because Farley failed t o state a claim on which r elief can be granted. Judgment affirmed.

O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

_________________January Term, 2021

5 James R. Farley, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Daniel J. Benoit, Assistant At torney General, for appellee.

_________________