[Cite as Miller v. Bradshaw, 2011-Ohio-4972.]

[Please see nunc pro tunc opinion at 2011-Ohio-5380.] 

COURT OF APPEALS 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

WAYNE MILLER 

 Petitioner 

-vsWARDEN MARGERIT(SIC) 

BRADSHAW 

 Respondent 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

: Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 2011-CA-79 

: 

: 

: O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 26, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner For Respondent 

WAYNE MILLER PRO SE 

P.O. Box 8107 

Mansfield, OH 44901 
[Cite as Miller v. Bradshaw, 2011-Ohio-4972.]

Gwin, P.J. 

{1} Petitioner, Wayne Miller, has filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

alleging unlawful detention based upon his contention that Union County has failed to 

act on its probation holder within a reasonable amount of time. We find it unnecessary 

to address the claims raised because Petitioner has failed to comply with the procedural 

requirements for a habeas petition. 

{2} A review of the complaint reveals Petitioner has failed to attach the 

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

{3} 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. See also, 

Boyd v. Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388, wherein the Supreme Court held, “Habeas corpus 

petitioner's failure to attach pertinent commitment papers to his petition rendered 

petition fatally defective, and petitioner's subsequent attachment of commitment papers 

to his post-judgment motion did not cure the defect.” R.C. § 2725.04(D). 

{4} We find failure to include all pertinent entries has made a complete 

understanding of the Petition impossible. 

{5} 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 
Richland County, Case No. 2011-CA-79 3 

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.). 

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

civil actions. 

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

By Gwin, P.J., 

Hoffman, J., and 

Wise, J., concur 

 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

WSG:clw 0914 
[Cite as Miller v. Bradshaw, 2011-Ohio-4972.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

WAYNE MILLER : 

 : 

 Petitioner : 

 : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

WARDEN MARGERIT(SIC) 

BRADSHAW : 

 : 

 : 

 Respondent : CASE NO. 2011-CA-79 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Costs to Petitioner. 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE