Summary
affirming this court's dismissal of a habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2725.03
Summary of this case from Anderson v. KellyOpinion
No. 88-2165
Submitted May 30, 1988 —
Decided July 26, 1989.
Habeas corpus — R.C. 2725.03 allocates habeas corpus jurisdiction among courts of appeals on a territorial basis.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 11275.
Appellant, Larry e. Bridges, alleges that he is confined in Marion Correctional Institution, of which appellee is the superintendent. Appellant petitioned the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County for a writ of habeas corpus, although Marion County, where Marion Correctional Institution, is located, is not in the Second Appellate District. The court of appeals therefore dismissed the petition on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it under R.C. 2725.03, which provides in pertinent part:
"If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state benevolent or penal institution, the location of which is fixed by statute * * *, no court or judge other than the courts or judges of the county in which such institution is located has jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas corpus for his production or discharge."
The cause is before us upon an appeal as of right.
Larry E. Bridges, pro se. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Donald G. Keyser, for appellee.
Appellant argues that R.C. 2725.03 is an unconstitutional limitation of the original habeas corpus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals. See State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 149, 40 O.O. 2d 141, 146, 228 N.E.2d 631, 639-640. However, R.C. 2725.03 does not attempt to limit the habeas corpus jurisdiction of any court; it merely allocates it among the courts of appeals on a territorial basis. Section 3(B)( 1)(c), Article IV, Ohio Constitution gives each court of appeals original jurisdiction in habeas corpus, but does not guarantee that such jurisdiction shall be statewide. We therefore find R.C. 2725.03 constitutional.
Appellant further argues that R.C. 2725.03 is inapplicable because the location of Marion Correctional Institution is not "fixed by statute." However, appellee directs our attention to R.C. 2967.01, which includes "the Marion correctional institution" in its definition of the term "[s]tate penal or reformatory institution." We hold this sufficient to fix the institution's location in Marion. Hence, R.C. 2725.03 was correctly applied by the court of appeals. The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.