Court Opinion

ID: 9943370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 14:07:37.409051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:54.117200
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
Blodharn v. Chambers-Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-645.]

                                        NOTICE
     This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
     advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
     promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 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.

                         SLIP OPINION NO. 2024-OHIO-645
                      BLODHARN v. CHAMBERS-SMITH, DIR.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
        may be cited as Blodharn v. Chambers-Smith, Slip Opinion No.
                                    2024-Ohio-645.]
Habeas corpus—Petitioner failed to include commitment papers showing that
        imprisonment lacks legal authority, as required by R.C. 2725.04(D)—Writ
        denied.
(No. 2023-1083—Submitted December 12, 2023—Decided February 23, 2024.)
                                  IN HABEAS CORPUS.
                                 __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} Petitioner, Heathen Blodharn, seeks a writ of habeas corpus to obtain
his release from an Ohio prison. He has named Annette Chambers-Smith, the
director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), as the
respondent. Blodharn argues that he is unlawfully imprisoned in Ohio because he
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

has never been convicted of an offense in an Ohio court or been validly transferred
to Ohio from a Montana prison. We deny the writ.
            I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
                         A. Allegations in the Petition
       {¶ 2} Blodharn alleges that he has been imprisoned in Ohio since June 1,
2022, despite never having been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any
crime in this state. He has been confined in three different Ohio prisons since his
transfer from a Montana prison on that date.
       {¶ 3} Blodharn acknowledges that Montana and Ohio are members of the
Interstate Corrections Compact (“ICC”). Under the ICC, an inmate of an institution
in one member state may be transferred to an institution in another member state to
serve a prison sentence. See R.C. 5120.50; Mont.Code Ann. 46-19-401. However,
Blodharn contends that his imprisonment in Ohio is not pursuant to the ICC and is
otherwise without any legal authority.
       {¶ 4} On August 28, 2023, Blodharn filed his habeas petition in this court.
Blodharn contends that he is unlawfully imprisoned in Ohio, and he asks for his
immediate release from custody. We ordered a return of writ. 171 Ohio St.3d 1436,
2023-Ohio-3328, 217 N.E.3d 804.
                     B. Chambers-Smith’s Return of Writ
       {¶ 5} Chambers-Smith timely filed a return of writ and provided facts and
documents that Blodharn did not include in his habeas filing. According to
Chambers-Smith, Blodharn was formerly known as Danny Lee Warner Jr. and had
been serving prison sentences for multiple convictions in Montana, including an
October 2017 conviction that resulted in a 50-year sentence with parole eligibility
after 35 years. In March 2022, Billie Reich, the ICC coordinator at the Montana
Department of Corrections (“MDC”), contacted Tracy Reveal, the ICC coordinator
at ODRC, seeking assistance with finding a facility in which to place Blodharn.
Reich indicated that Blodharn was “a hard to place inmate in Montana” because of

                                         2
                                 January Term, 2024

the need for him to be separated from other inmates and his affiliation with a white-
supremacist group. Reich asked whether Blodharn could be housed in Ohio and
offered to accept an Ohio prisoner in exchange for ODRC’s accepting Blodharn.
ODRC agreed to accept Blodharn at an ODRC institution, and Reveal arranged for
Blodharn to be transported from Montana to Ohio on May 31, 2022. Blodharn
arrived in Ohio and was placed in ODRC custody the next day.
       {¶ 6} Blodharn did not file a response to Chambers-Smith’s return of writ.
After his time for response expired, however, Blodharn filed a motion for an
expedited ruling in this case.
                                  II. ANALYSIS
       {¶ 7} A writ of habeas corpus is warranted in certain circumstances when
“there is an unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty and there is no adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law.” Pegan v. Crawmer, 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 99, 666
N.E.2d 1091 (1996). In her return of writ, Chambers-Smith offers several reasons
why this court should either dismiss the petition or deny the writ, one of which
being that Blodharn failed to include commitment papers with his petition as
required by R.C. 2725.04(D). Because this issue is dispositive, we deny the writ
without considering Chambers-Smith’s other arguments. See McDonald v. Black,
169 Ohio St.3d 443, 2022-Ohio-3938, 205 N.E.3d 510, ¶ 5.
       {¶ 8} A habeas petition must satisfy the filing requirements of R.C.
2725.04. See Davis v. Sheldon, 159 Ohio St.3d 147, 2020-Ohio-436, 149 N.E.3d
467, ¶ 7. One of those requirements is that the petitioner include a “copy of the
commitment or cause of detention” or facts showing that “the imprisonment or
detention is without legal authority.” R.C. 2725.04(D). In this case, Blodharn did
not attach any commitment papers related to his confinement, relying instead on
the theory that his imprisonment in Ohio lacked any legal authority. This allegation
stated an arguable habeas claim, for which this court ordered a return of writ.

                                         3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

        {¶ 9} Chambers-Smith’s return, however, reveals that Blodharn’s petition
omitted pertinent commitment papers related to his Ohio confinement. Chambers-
Smith has submitted documents showing that (1) Blodharn is serving prison
sentences for convictions entered in Montana courts and (2) MDC transferred
Blodharn to the custody of ODRC pursuant to a prisoner exchange under the ICC.
Blodharn failed to attach to his petition documentation of his commitments
following his convictions and his transfer, nor did he allege facts indicating that he
was unable to procure that documentation without impairing the efficiency of the
habeas remedy. See R.C. 2725.04(D). When a return of writ shows that the
petitioner did not satisfy the commitment-papers requirement of R.C. 2725.04(D),
we have denied the writ on that basis. See McDonald at ¶ 8, 11. And so we do
here.
                               III. CONCLUSION
        {¶ 10} For the foregoing reasons, we deny the writ of habeas corpus. We
deny as moot Blodharn’s motion for an expedited ruling.
                                                                        Writ denied.
        KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                               _________________
        Heathen Blodharn, pro se.
        Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Katherine E. Mullin, Assistant Attorney
General, for respondent.
                               _________________

                                          4