State ex rel. Baker v. Court of Common Pleas , 2016 Ohio 7769 ( 2016 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Baker v. Court of Common Pleas, 2016-Ohio-7769.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. : JUDGES:
MICHAEL L. BAKER : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
Petitioner : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
:
-vs- :
:
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS/ : CASE NO. 2016CA00065
ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY :
:
Respondent : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 14, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner For Respondent
MICHAEL L. BAKER, Pro Se JOHN D. FERRERO
200 High Street S. W. Stark County Prosecuting Attorney
Apt. 702 By: KRISTINE W. BEARD
Canton, OH 44701 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510
Canton, OH 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2016CA00065 2
Farmer, P.J.
{¶1} Petitioner, Michael L. Baker, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
In paragraph four of the petition, he avers he is being unlawfully detained in the Belmont
Correctional Institution.
{¶2} A review of the complaint reveals Petitioner has failed to attach the
necessary commitment papers in compliance with R.C. 2745.04(D). The only commitment
paper attached to the petition is a sentencing entry out of Canton Municipal Court Case
Number 2015CRB05765. This entry does not sentence Petitioner to prison. Therefore,
there are additional commitment papers which have not been attached.
{¶3} The Supreme Court has held failure to comply with this requirement is a
fatal defect which cannot be cured, “[C]ommitment 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. 2745.04(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, 602 N.E.2d 602.
{¶4} See also, Boyd v. Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388, wherein the Supreme Court
held, “Habeas corpus petitioner's failure to attach pertinent commitment papers to his
petition rendered petition fatally defective, and petitioner's subsequent attachment of
commitment papers to his post-judgment motion did not cure the defect.” R.C. 2745.04(D).
{¶5} We find the failure to include all pertinent commitment papers has made a
Stark County, Case No. 2016CA00065 3
complete understanding of the Petition impossible. For this reason, the petition is
dismissed.
By Farmer, P.J.
Gwin, J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
SGF/as 1103