Opinion
No. 10CA24.
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 5, 2010.
Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Dismissed.
Robert Sansom, Richland Correctional Institution, for Petitioner.
Margaret A. Bradshaw, Warden, Richland Correctional Institution, for Respondent.
Before: Hon. Julie A. Edwards, P.J., Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J., Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
OPINION
{¶ 1} Petitioner, Robert Sansom, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus claiming he is entitled to release from confinement because his maximum sentence has expired. Petitioner has not attached a copy of his commitment papers. Rather, he alleges he was not able to obtain a copy of his commitment papers without impairing the efficiency of the remedy sought.
{¶ 2} The Supreme Court has held failure to comply with the requirement of attaching all pertinent commitment papers is a fatal defect which cannot be cured.
{¶ 3} "[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. 2725.04(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. 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. § 2725.04(D).
{¶ 4} We likewise find the failure to include all pertinent entries has made a complete understanding of the Petition impossible.
{¶ 5} For this reason, Petitioner's request for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.
By: Hoffman, J. Edwards, P.J. and Gwin, J. concur
JUDGMENT ENTRY
Petitioner's request for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.
Costs assessed to Petitioner.