Court Opinion

ID: 9962562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:11:38.012333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:01.446271
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Chester v. Black, 2024-Ohio-1558.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                     RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                       JUDGES:
ISAAC CHESTER                                  :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
                                               :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                         Petitioner            :       Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                               :
-vs-                                           :
                                               :       Case No. 2024 CA 0007
KENNETH BLACK WARDEN,                          :
RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL                          :
INSTITUTE                                      :       OPINION

                         Respondent

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                           Writ of Habeas Corpus

JUDGMENT:                                          Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                            April 23, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For - Petitioner                                   For - Respondent

ISAAC CHESTER #791-522                             DAVE YOST
Richland Correctional Institution                  Ohio Attorney General
P.O. Box 8107                                      BY: JERRI L. FOSNAUGHT
Mansfield, OH 44901                                Assistant Attorney General
                                                   Criminal Justice Section
                                                   30 East Broad Street, 3rd Floor
                                                   Columbus, OH 43215
[Cite as Chester v. Black, 2024-Ohio-1558.]

Gwin, P.J.

        {¶1}     On March 6, 2024, Petitioner Isaac Chester filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus against Respondent Kenneth Black, Warden of the Richland Correctional

Institution. On March 18, 2024, Warden Black filed a Motion to Dismiss. Chester filed a

response to the motion on April 17, 2024. For the following reasons, Respondent Black’s

motion is granted and Chester’s writ is dismissed.

                                 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        {¶2}     Chester is currently incarcerated under sentencing journal entries issued by

Portage and Cuyahoga Counties Common Pleas Courts. On August 11, 2021, Chester

pled guilty, in the Portage County Common Pleas Court, to one count of failure to comply.

State of Ohio v. Isaac J. Chester, Portage C.P.No. 2021 CR 0462 (Aug. 11, 2022). On

August 11, 2022, the trial court sentenced Chester to a 24-month prison term “to be

served Mandatory Consecutive Sentence with the sentence the Defendant is currently

serving, or until such time as he is otherwise legally released.” This sentence was

subsequently affirmed in State v. Chester, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2022 PA 00060, 2023-

Ohio-2122.

        {¶3}     The sentence Chester was serving, at the time of his sentencing in Portage

County, was a sentence for one count of robbery and one count of felonious assault. On

March 30, 2022, Chester pled guilty to these two counts in the Cuyahoga County

Common Pleas Court. The State of Ohio v. Isaac Chester, Cuyahoga C.P.No. CR-21-

662387-A (May 11, 2022). On May 11, 2022, the trial court sentenced Chester to a

minimum prison term of 2 years and a maximum prison term of 3 years. Chester did not

appeal this sentence.
Richland County, Case No. 2024 CA 0007                                                      3

       {¶4}   According to Chester, following his sentencing in Portage County, he

immediately began serving time for the Portage County sentence. Upon completion of his

Portage County sentence, Chester once again began serving the remaining balance of

his Cuyahoga County sentence on January 30, 2024.

       {¶5}   On February 13, 2023, Chester sought habeas relief, in his Portage County

conviction, arguing he was denied his right to a speedy trial and there was an

unnecessary delay in sentencing. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissed the

writ. Chester v. Davis, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2023-T-0013, 2023-Ohio-1629.

       {¶6}   Chester thereafter filed the present writ of habeas corpus. He maintains

since January 29, 2024 he has been unlawfully imprisoned due to improper sentencing

orders and incorrect computations through the Bureau of Sentence Computation

(“BOSC”).

              II. CIV.R. 12(B) (6) STANDARD AND HABEAS CORPUS ELEMENTS

       {¶7}   Respondent Black filed a Motion to Dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The

purpose of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency of the complaint. State ex

rel. Boggs v. Springfield Loc. School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 94, 95, 647 N.E.2d

788 (1995). In order for a case to be dismissed for failure to state a claim, it must appear

beyond doubt that, even assuming all factual allegations in the complaint are true, the

nonmoving party can prove no set of facts that would entitle that party to the relief

requested. Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 10.

       {¶8}   If a petition does not satisfy the requirements of a properly filed petition for

writ of habeas corpus or does not present a facially viable claim, it may be dismissed on

motion by the respondent or sua sponte by the court. Flora v. State, 7th Dist. Belmont No.
Richland County, Case No. 2024 CA 0007                                                    4

04 BE 51, 2005-Ohio-2383, ¶ 5. Finally, we are permitted to consider material

incorporated within a complaint as part of that pleading, without having to convert the

matter to a summary judgment proceeding. See Boyd v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 2d

District Montgomery No. 25950, 2015-Ohio-1394, ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Crabtree v.

Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health, 77 Ohio St.3d 247, 249, fn. 1, 673 N.E.2d 1281 (1997).

(“Material incorporated in a complaint may be considered part of the complaint for

purposes of determining a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.”)

       {¶9}   “To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must show that he is

being unlawfully restrained of his liberty and that he is entitled to immediate release from

prison or confinement.” State ex rel. Whitt v. Harris, 157 Ohio St.3d 384, 2019-Ohio-4113,

137 N.E.3d 71, ¶ 6, citing R.C. 2725.01; State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d

213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10. “[A]n inmate is not usually eligible for habeas

relief until his maximum sentence has expired.” [Citation omitted.] Pence v. Bunting, 143

Ohio St.3d 532, 2015-Ohio-2026, 40 N.E.3d 1058, ¶ 9. Finally, habeas corpus is not

available when an adequate remedy at law exists. Billiter v. Banks, 135 Ohio St.3d 426,

2013-Ohio-1719, 988 N.E.2d 556, ¶ 8. (Citations omitted.)

                                          III. ANALYSIS

   A. BOSC did not violate the Cuyahoga and Portage County commitment papers by
      starting Chester’s Portage County sentence immediately upon sentencing.

       {¶10} Chester challenges the fact that BOSC started his time for the Portage

County case immediately upon his sentencing in Portage County even though he was in

the process of serving his Cuyahoga County sentence. Petitioner claims he was released

from serving his Portage County sentence on January 29, 2024, and BOSC immediately
Richland County, Case No. 2024 CA 0007                                                    5

illegally restarted his Cuyahoga County sentence on January 30, 2024. Chester contends

he should have been released from prison on January 29, 2024.

       {¶11} We reject Chester’s challenge to the order in which he served or is currently

serving his sentences. R.C. 2929.14(C)(10) provides:

       When a court sentences an offender to a non-life felony indefinite prison

       term, any definite prison term or mandatory definite prison term previously

       or subsequently imposed on the offender in addition to that indefinite

       sentence that is required to be served consecutively to that indefinite

       sentence shall be served prior to the indefinite sentence.

       {¶12} Chester erroneously indicates on page 5 of his petition that the Cuyahoga

County Common Pleas Court sentenced him to 2 years in Case No. CR-21-662387-A.

Rather, the Journal Entry indicates a minimum prison term of two years and a maximum

prison term of three years. Chester began serving his indefinite sentence on May 11,

2022. Thereafter, on August 11, 2022, the Portage County Common Pleas Court

sentenced Chester to a twenty-four-month prison term to be served consecutively with

the Cuyahoga County sentence.

       {¶13} Therefore, under R.C. 2929.14(C)(10), BOSC properly interrupted service

of his indefinite Cuyahoga County sentence so he could serve his definite Portage County

sentence. The definite twenty-four-month Portage County sentence was required to be

served before the indefinite Cuyahoga County sentence. Upon completion of his Portage

County sentence, Chester again began serving his Cuyahoga County sentence. He has

not completed serving his maximum Cuyahoga County sentence. His expected release

date/parole eligibility date is July 16, 2025. See Department of Rehabilitation & Correction
Richland County, Case No. 2024 CA 0007                                                    6

https://appgateway.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/Details/A791522.          Until   that

time, any claim for immediate release is unripe.

   B. Chester is not entitled to habeas relief because he does not raise a
      jurisdictional error.

       {¶14} A discharge from custody by way of habeas corpus is not available where

the court or magistrate had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment or make

the order. In re Burson, 152 Ohio St. 375, 89 N.E.2d 651, paragraph four of the syllabus

(1949). Rather, “[s]uch person has an adequate remedy at law by way of review on

appeal.” Id. Further, “[h]abeas corpus is not the proper mode of redress, where the relator

has been convicted of a criminal offense, and sentenced to imprisonment therefor by a

court of competent jurisdiction; if error or irregularities have occurred in the proceedings

or sentence, a writ of error [appeal] is the proper remedy.” Ex parte Van Hagan, 25 Ohio

St. 426 (1874), paragraph two of the syllabus.

       {¶15} Here, Chester challenges the order in which he was required to serve his

sentences and BOSCO’s calculation of his release date. Chester does not raise

jurisdictional errors and therefore, he is not entitled to habeas relief.

                                         IV. CONCLUSION

       {¶16} For the foregoing reasons, we grant Respondent Black’s Motion to Dismiss

under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Chester cannot state a claim entitling him to habeas relief.
Richland County, Case No. 2024 CA 0007                                                   7

      {¶17} The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default

notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).

      {¶18} MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED.

      {¶19} CAUSE DISMISSED.

      {¶20} COSTS TO PETITIONER.

      {¶21} IT IS SO ORDERED

By Gwin, P.J.,

Hoffman, J., and

Wise, J., concur