Court Opinion

ID: 9882697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:18:40.154867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:45.259664
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Kelley v. Gray, 2023-Ohio-3336.]

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

                                       WILLIAM L. KELLEY,

                                                 Petitioner,

                                                     v.

                                    DAVID GRAY, WARDEN,

                                               Respondent.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                            Case No. 23 MA 0078

                                            Writ of Habeas Corpus

                                          BEFORE:
                  Mark A. Hanni, Cheryl L. Waite, David A. D’Apolito, Judges.

                                                JUDGMENT:
                                                  Denied.

 William L. Kelley, Pro se, #A560-890, Belmont Correctional Institution, 68518 Bannock
 Road, St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950, Petitioner and

 Atty. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General and Atty. William H. Lamb, Assistant Attorney
 General, Criminal Justice Section, 8040 Hosbrook Road, Suite 300, Cincinnati, Ohio
 45236, for Respondent.

                                     Dated: September 14, 2023
                                                                                         –2–

 PER CURIAM.

       {¶1}   Petitioner William L. Kelley has filed this original action for a writ of habeas
corpus seeking his immediate release from the Belmont Correctional Institution (BECI).
BECI is one of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s prison facilities.
Kelley is a self-represented prison inmate whose petition names the BECI’s warden,
David Gray, as Respondent.        Kelley argues that his conviction was the product of
prosecutorial misconduct, improper jury instructions, and flawed verdict forms.          The
warden has filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Because we lack jurisdiction
over Kelley’s petition, we must grant the warden’s motion and dismiss the petition.
       {¶2}   R.C. 2725.02 grants to this Court the ability to authorize writs of habeas
corpus. However, R.C. 2725.03 directs that “If a person restrained of his liberty is an
inmate of a state benevolent or correctional institution, * * * no court or judge other than
the court or judges of the county in which the institute is located has jurisdiction to issue
or determine a writ of habeas corpus * * *.” (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court has
“strictly construed” the language of R.C. 2725.03. State ex rel. Robinson v. Fender, 170
Ohio St.3d 147, 2022-Ohio-3701, 209 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 5, citing Brown v. Hall, 123 Ohio
St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-5592, ¶ 1; Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-
4787, ¶ 17-18. Thus, of particular relevance here, the Supreme Court has held that even
though the petition for a writ of habeas corpus reached the same district court of appeals
it would have had it been filed in the correct county, the court of appeals still lacked
jurisdiction to determine the merits. Brown v. Hall, 123 Ohio St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-5592,
916 N.E.2d 807, ¶ 1.
       {¶3}   Kelley is incarcerated in Belmont County, and yet he filed this petition with
the Mahoning County Clerk of Courts. Although the petition would ultimately reach this
Court whether filed in Belmont County or Mahoning County, the statute explicitly directs
that Kelley must file in Belmont County.
       {¶4}   Accordingly, in consideration of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that
Respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and this original action in habeas

Case No. 23 MA 0078
                                                                                   –3–

corpus is DISMISSED. Writ denied. Any and all pending motions and unresolved filings
are hereby dismissed as moot.
      {¶5}   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Civ.R. 58, 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 assessed to Petitioner.

 JUDGE MARK A. HANNI

 JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE

 JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO

Case No. 23 MA 0078