Opinion
No. 09 MA 69.
Dated: June 3, 2009.
Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court, Case No. 05CR420.
Appeal Dismissed as Moot.
Lawrence Owens, Pro Se, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Attorney Scott Cochran, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Hon. Gene Donofrio, Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich, Hon. Mary DeGenaro.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶ 1} Pro se Notice of Appeal was filed herein on April 15, 2009 from a final judgment dismissing appellant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
{¶ 2} The docket record shows that a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on September 16, 2008 alleging that appellant was illegally confined at the Community Corrections Association in violation of the Interstate Agreement of Detainers. On January 13, 2009 a magistrate recommended dismissal of the petition for failure of appellant to attach his commitment papers. On March 27, 2009 following an objections hearing, the trial court affirmed the Magistrate's Decision and dismissed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
{¶ 3} It is noted that the record shows that when appellant filed his petition he resided at 1608 Market Street, Youngstown, Ohio. When he filed his Notice of Appeal, appellant listed an address of 1142 Hamilton Avenue, Farrell, Pennsylvania. Not only has he moved from this Court's jurisdiction, he has relocated out of the State of Ohio.
{¶ 4} Under R.C. 2725.01 "whoever is unlawfully restrained of his liberty * * * may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment, restraint, or deprivation." However, if the complaining party is no longer in the custody of the named respondent the petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot. In State ex rel. DiPadova v. Stephenson, 8th Dist. No. 91751, 2008-Ohio-6503, our sister district dismissed an action in habeas corpus as moot since the complaining party in that case was no longer in custody. Moreover, once a sentence has expired and the petitioner is no longer in custody, the case is moot and habeas corpus does not lie. Ware v. Haskins (1963), 175 Ohio St. 207.
{¶ 5} This appellate district is in accord with the proposition of law that the release of a petitioner renders a habeas corpus action moot. Larsen v. State of Ohio, 92 Ohio St.3d 69, 2001-Ohio-133. See, also, White v. Wolfe, 7th Dist. No. 305, 2003-Ohio-3883.
{¶ 6} Although appellant may have been in custody and subject to appellee's control at the time the petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed, that is no longer the case. Appellant's notice of appeal lists an address in Farrell, Pennsylvania where he is now residing. Moreover, appellant's term of residence in Community Corrections has now expired. Therefore, there is no relief this Court could provide by proceeding to a merit determination of this appeal.
{¶ 7} Therefore, this appeal of the denial of a habeas petition is sua sponte dismissed as moot. No costs assessed.
DONOFRIO, J., concurs. VUKOVICH, P.J., concurs. DeGENARO, J., concurs.