Court Opinion

ID: 9383081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 15:17:45.716838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:43.387677
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Smith v. Lucas, 2023-Ohio-1018.]

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

                                    ERIC JAMES SMITH, JR.

                                             Petitioner,

                                                 v.

                                 DAVID M. LUCAS, SHERIFF
                                 BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO

                                            Respondent.

                       OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                        Case No. 22 BE 0060

                                        Writ of Habeas Corpus

                                         BEFORE:
                Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, David A. D’Apolito, Judges.

                                            JUDGMENT:
                                             Dismissed.

 Atty. R. Aaron Miller, Chief Assistant Belmont County Public Defender, 121 Newell
 Avenue, St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950, for Petitioner.

 Atty. J. Kevin Flanagan, Belmont County Prosecutor, Atty. Christopher J. Gagin,
 Belmont County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 52160 National Road East, St.
 Clairsville, Ohio 43950, for Respondent.

                                        Dated: March 23, 2023
                                                                                         –2–

PER CURIAM.

       {¶1}   Petitioner Eric James Smith Jr. has commenced this original action by filing

a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking his immediate release from the

Belmont County Jail or a reduced bond amount. Petitioner alleges his pretrial bond was

increased from a recognizance bond to a $100,000 bond after again being charged with

the same offense and having failed to appear for the first. Respondent, Belmont County

Sheriff David M. Lucas, has filed a response in opposition to the petition, requesting

dismissal of the petition. Respondent contends the heightened bond amount is justified

by Petitioner’s repeated offenses and failure to appear in court. For a different reason,

we sua sponte dismiss the petition for failure to comply with the filing requirements of

R.C. 2725.04.

       {¶2}   R.C. 2725.01 explains the availability of habeas corpus relief: “Whoever is

unlawfully restrained of his liberty, or entitled to the custody of another, of which custody

such person is unlawfully deprived, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into

the cause of such imprisonment, restraint, or deprivation.” R.C. 2725.04 lists the required

contents of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Of particular importance here is the

requirement that the petitioner includes all pertinent commitment papers relevant to the

arguments they are raising in the petition:

       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:

       ***

Case No. 22 BE 0060
                                                                                       –3–

      (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.

To comply with this rule, a petitioner must attach all pertinent papers regarding his

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.

      {¶3}   The Ohio Supreme Court has acknowledged the necessity and importance

of these papers, explaining:

      These commitment 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, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602 (1992).

      {¶4}   Here, the habeas petition does not include any commitment papers.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED by the Court that this original action in habeas corpus is

hereby DISMISSED and the writ is DENIED.           Respondent’s response in opposition

wherein he requested dismissal of the petition is hereby DENIED as moot.

Case No. 22 BE 0060
                                                                                     –4–

      {¶5}   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the Court, pursuant to Civ.R. 58, that the

Clerk of the Belmont 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 for this action are waived.

Case No. 22 BE 0060