State ex rel. Jones v. Bradshaw

[Cite as State ex rel. Jones v. Bradshaw, 123 Ohio St.3d 444, 2009-Ohio-5586.] THE STATE EX REL. JONES, APPELLANT, v. BRADSHAW, WARDEN, ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Jones v. Bradshaw, 123 Ohio St.3d 444, 2009-Ohio-5586.] Habeas corpus — Mandamus — Dismissal of habeas claim affirmed because petitioner did not attach all pertinent commitment papers — Mandamus claim dismissed — Mandamus not appropriate vehicle to seek release from prison. (No. 2009-0958 — Submitted October 20, 2009 — Decided October 28, 2009.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 09CA009545. ____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, Shigali Jones, for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus to compel his release from prison. Jones’s habeas corpus claim is fatally defective and subject to dismissal because he did not attach copies of all of his pertinent commitment papers. Knowles v. Voorhies, 121 Ohio St.3d 271, 2009-Ohio-1109, 903 N.E.2d 637. Jones’s mandamus claim lacks merit because it is not the appropriate action to seek release from prison. State ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio St.3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, 859 N.E.2d 928, ¶ 5. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. PFEIFER, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and grant the writ. __________________ Paul Mancino Jr., for appellant. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Stephanie Watson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees. ______________________ 2