[Cite as Smith v. Miller, 2015-Ohio-2746.]

STATE OF OHIO, BELMONT COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. WARREN 

SMITH, SUI-JURIS, 

 PETITIONER, 

V. 

MICHELE MILLER, WARDEN BELMONT 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

 RESPONDENT. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 15 BE 26 

OPINION 

AND 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner Warren Smith, Pro-se 

A297258 

P.O. Box 540 

St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950-0540 

For Respondent Paul Kerridge 

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Justice Section 

150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

 

 

 Dated: July 2, 2015 
[Cite as Smith v. Miller, 2015-Ohio-2746.]

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} On April 27, 2015, Petitioner Warren Smith filed a pro se “commercial 

writ in petition for writ of habeas corpus” claiming the sentencing court lacked 

jurisdiction resulting in his sentencing order being void. Respondent Michelle Miller, 

Warden of the Belmont Correctional Institution in Saint Clairsville, Ohio answered by 

filing a motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment. 

{¶2} A jury found Smith guilty of three counts of rape, one count of gross 

sexual imposition, and seven counts of corruption of a minor. State v. Smith, 2d Dist. 

No. 94-CA-86, 1995 WL 655943 (Nov. 8, 1995). The trial court sentenced Smith to 

consecutive five to twenty-five year terms on two of the rape convictions, to an 

identical concurrent term on the remaining rape conviction, and to concurrent twoyear terms on all remaining counts. Id. Smith appealed challenging his conviction and 

sentence. Id. The Second District vacated one count and remanded the matter for a 

new trial on that charge. Id. The convictions and sentence were affirmed in all other 

respects. Id.

{¶3} In 1999, Smith appealed from a judgment of the Greene County 

Common Pleas Court classifying him as a sexual predator. The Second District found 

no violation of Smith’s constitutional rights and affirmed the classification. State v. 

Smith, 2d Dist. No. 99 CA 121, 2000 WL 353171 (April 7, 2000). 

{¶4} In his “commercial writ in petition for writ of habeas corpus” Smith 

argues that the trial court did not possess jurisdiction over him because the 

sentencing paperwork is void. Though the substance of Smith’s argument is not 
-2-

readily apparent, the Respondent proffers that Smith is attempting to merge two legal 

theories: (1) the sovereignty of the Federal Reserve Board and (2) the “Commercial 

Affidavit Process.” Respondent argues that these claims are not cognizable or 

meritorious in a habeas corpus action. The Respondent is correct. 

{¶5} Individuals who are “unlawfully restrained” may prosecute a writ of 

habeas corpus. R.C. 2725.01. Application is made by petition which must contain 

certain information and enumerated items. R.C. 2725.04. If the court decides that the 

petition states a facially valid claim, it must allow the writ. R.C. 2725.06. However, “if 

the petition states a claim for which habeas corpus relief cannot be granted, the court 

should not allow the writ and should dismiss the petition.” Pegan v. Crawmer, 73 

Ohio St.3d 607, 609, 1995-Ohio-175, 653 N.E.2d 659. 

{¶6} Smith had alternate remedies at law which preclude granting his writ of 

habeas corpus. Specifically, Smith filed a direct appeal of his convictions which the 

Second District affirmed. State v. Smith, 2d Dist. No. 94-CA-86, 1995 WL 655943 

(Nov. 8, 1995). Therefore, that direct appeal afforded Smith an adequate legal 

remedy to raise the issue he now claims in this habeas action. Habeas is not a 

substitute for direct appeal or post-conviction relief. Daniel v. State, 98 Ohio St.3d 

467, 2003–Ohio–1916, 786 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 8. Because Smith had an adequate legal 

remedy in the form of a direct appeal, he is not entitled to the extraordinary remedies 

available in a habeas action. 

{¶7} Further, Smith failed to attach to his complaint a proper statement 

setting forth the balance of his inmate account for the preceding six months from date 
-3-

of filing as certified by the institutional cashier, in accordance with R.C. 

2969.25(C)(1). Smith attached a statement from the period of February 2014 through 

July 2014 and this action was filed on April 27, 2015. Additionally, this document was 

not certified by the institutional cashier. “The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are 

mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate's action to dismissal.” 

Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2859, 951 N.E.2d 389, ¶ 1, quoting 

State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634.

{¶8} For the foregoing reasons, Smith's petition for writ of habeas corpus is 

hereby dismissed. Costs taxed against Petitioner. Final order. Clerk to serve notice 

on the parties as required by the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. 

DeGenaro, J. concurs. 

Donofrio, P.J. concurs. 

Waite, J. concurs.