Court Opinion

ID: 9392107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 13:07:36.340982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.400768
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Hargrove v. Bobby, 2023-Ohio-1474.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                MAHONING COUNTY

                                   DANIEL P. HARGROVE,

                                                Petitioner,

                                                    v.

                                        WARDEN BOBBY,

                                               Respondent.

                       OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                        Case No. 22 MA 0121

                                       Writ of Habeas Corpus

                                        BEFORE:
                Mark A. Hanni, Carol Ann Robb, David A. D’Apolito, Judges.

                                               JUDGMENT:
                                                 Denied.

 Daniel P. Hargrove, Pro se, 392 Beechwood Drive, Akron, Ohio 44320, Petitioner
 and

 Atty. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General and Atty. Maura O’Neill Jaite, Senior Assistant
 Attorney General, Ohio Attorney General's Office, Criminal Justice Section, 30 East
 Broad Street, 23rd Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for Respondent.

                                         Dated: May 3, 2023
                                                                                         –2–

 PER CURIAM.

       {¶1}   Petitioner Daniel P. Hargrove has brought this original action with the filing
of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He avers that is he is unlawfully
imprisoned at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC) located in Youngstown,
Mahoning County, Ohio. He claims his sentence has expired and the Ohio Adult Parole
Authority (APA) has violated his constitutional protections against unlawful search and
seizure and double jeopardy. The petition names as Respondent, David Bobby, Warden
of the NEOCC. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to Civ.R.
12(B)(6) or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C).
Respondent argues that the petition contains numerous procedural deficiencies and
contends that Petitioner has not established the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence
him. Furthermore, Respondent posits that Petitioner’s unlawful search-and-seizure claim
is not cognizable in habeas proceedings. Due to Petitioner’s failure to comply with the
verification and commitment-paper requirements of the statute governing petitions for a
writ of habeas corpus, this Court is compelled to dismiss the petition.
       {¶2}   As alleged in the petition, Petitioner pleaded guilty to burglary in the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas. On March 5, 2016, he was sentenced to a two-year
term of imprisonment to be followed by a three-year post-release control sanction.
Petitioner contends he completed the sentence, but the APA unlawfully extended it,
resulting in false imprisonment and a violation of his constitutional right to protection from
double jeopardy. He further contends the APA has violated the ultra vires doctrine by
contracting with a for-profit corporation and violated his constitutional protections against
illegal search and seizure.
       {¶3}   Respondent, as noted, has filed a motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to
Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Ohio prescribes a basic, summary procedure for bringing a habeas
corpus action. Waites v. Gansheimer, 110 Ohio St.3d 250, 2006-Ohio-4358, 852 N.E.2d
1204, ¶ 8. That procedure is augmented by the Rules of Civil Procedure, which generally
apply in original actions for extraordinary writs, including habeas corpus actions. Brooks
v. Kelly, 144 Ohio St.3d 322, 2015-Ohio-2805, 43 N.E.3d 385, ¶ 6; see also State ex rel.

Case No. 22 MA 0121
                                                                                         –3–

Foster v. Foley, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3168, ¶ 13 (clarifying that the Rules of Civil
Procedure apply in habeas actions only to the extent they would not by their nature be
clearly inapplicable).
       {¶4}   The purpose of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency of the
complaint, which is why the movant may not rely on allegations or evidence outside the
complaint. Civ.R. 12(B); Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494,
2010-Ohio-2057, 929 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 11. A court may dismiss a habeas action under
Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted “if, after all
factual allegations are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in [the
petitioner’s] favor, it appears beyond doubt that he could prove no set of facts entitling
him to the requested extraordinary relief in habeas corpus.” Handcock v. Shoop, 156
Ohio St.3d 282, 2019-Ohio-718, 125 N.E.3d 872, ¶ 5, quoting Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio
St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 10.
       {¶5}   This court is vested with original jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(B)(1)(c) of the Ohio Constitution and R.C.
2725.02. To receive a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must show they are being
unlawfully restrained of their liberty, R.C. 2725.01, and that they are entitled to immediate
release from prison or confinement. State ex rel. Cannon, 155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-
Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10. Notably, although Petitioner challenges the lawfulness
of his imprisonment, including his contention that his sentences have expired, he does
not explicitly state that he is entitled to immediate release from prison or confinement.
Nevertheless, we will proceed to address the procedural deficiencies of the petition.
       {¶6}   R.C. 2725.04 sets forth the statutory requirements attendant to a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus:

       Application for the writ of habeas corpus shall be by petition, signed and
       verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person
       for him, and shall specify:

       (A) That the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned,
       or restrained of his liberty;

Case No. 22 MA 0121
                                                                                         –4–

       (B) The officer, or name of the person by whom the prisoner is so confined
       or restrained; or, if both are unknown or uncertain, such officer or person
       may be described by an assumed appellation and the person who is served
       with the writ is deemed the person intended;

       (C) The place where the prisoner is so imprisoned or restrained, if known;

       (D) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person shall be
       exhibited, if it can be procured without impairing the efficiency of the
       remedy; or, if the imprisonment or detention is without legal authority, such
       fact must appear.

       {¶7}   The petition here fails to satisfy two of the requirements contained in this
section. The first is the requirement found in the introductory sentence where it states
the petition shall be signed and verified by the party. To be properly verified, a declaration
must be sworn in the presence of an authorized officer, such as a notary public. State ex
rel. Foster v. Foley, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3168, ¶ 12. Failure to comply with the
verification requirement renders the petition fatally defective and subject to dismissal.
State ex rel. Austin v. Knab, 127 Ohio St.3d 118, 2010-Ohio-4982, 936 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 1.
       {¶8}   Upon review, Petitioner’s signature appears at only one location in the
petition, on the certificate of service. Nowhere in the petition does Petitioner swear to the
truth of the facts contained therein. Nor does the petition contain any kind of notarization.
Therefore, Petitioner has failed to comply with R.C. 2725.04’s verification requirement.
       {¶9}   The second requirement is found in subsection (D) – the commitment
papers requirement. To meet it, a petitioner must attach all pertinent papers regarding
their commitment. State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184,
120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 6. A petition that fails to comply with this requirement is defective and
requires dismissal. Farley v. Wainwright, 164 Ohio St.3d 441, 2021-Ohio-670, 173 N.E.3d
468, ¶ 6. The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained that “[t]hese commitment papers are
necessary for a complete understanding of the petition.” Bloss v. Rogers, 65 Ohio St.3d
145, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602 (1992).
       {¶10} The only commitment paper Petitioner attached to his petition is a form
document issued by the APA entitled, Sanction Receipt and Prison Term Order (PRC). It

Case No. 22 MA 0121
                                                                                          –5–

substantiates that Petitioner was released on post-release control on March 8, 2018. It
reflects also that the APA conducted a revocation hearing on August 15, 2022, resulting
in Petitioner being found guilty of violating three rules attendant to his post-release control
sanction and imposing a sanction of 221 days in prison for the violations. However,
Petitioner did not include the commitment paper memorializing the sentence he received
in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.              In the absence of that particular
commitment paper and additional revocation-related papers, if any, we cannot ascertain
a complete understanding of whether Petitioner’s sentence has indeed expired. Thus,
Petitioner has also failed to comply with R.C. 2725.04’s commitment-papers requirement.
       {¶11} In conclusion, Petitioner’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus falls
short of fulfilling the statutory prerequisites outlined in R.C. 2725.04. The petition lacks
proper verification, as it is neither sworn to nor notarized, and does not satisfy the
commitment-papers requirement, given the absence of the commitment paper from the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas. As a result of these procedural shortcomings,
the petition is defective necessitating dismissal.
       {¶12} Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED, the writ is DENIED, and this cause DISMISSED. Final order.
       {¶13} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B), that the Clerk of the
Mahoning County Court of Appeals shall immediately serve upon all parties (including
unrepresented or self-represented parties) notice of this judgment and its date of entry
upon the journal. Costs waived.

 JUDGE MARK A. HANNI

 JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB

JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO

Case No. 22 MA 0121