[Cite as State v. Willeke, 2012-Ohio-1755.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MORROW COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Respondent Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
-vs-
Case No. 12-CA-1
JOHN I. WILLEKE
Petitioner OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 18, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Petitioner Respondent
JOHN I. WILLEKE NO APPEARANCE
5851 CO RD 9
Edison, Ohio 43320
Morrow County, Case No. 12-CA-1 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Petitioner, John I. Willeke, has filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
alleging unlawful detention based upon his contention that his indictment was defective.
We find it unnecessary to address the claims raised in the Petition because Petitioner
has failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a habeas petition.
{¶2} Petitioner captioned the petition as the “State of Ohio v. John I Willeke.”
For this reason, Petitioner has failed to name a proper Respondent. See Tate v.
Bernard (Nov. 21, 2001), Trumbull App. No. 2001–T–0087, 2001 WL 1497206 (“the writ
will lie only against the individual who is directly responsible for keeping the petitioner in
custody”); Jackson v. State (Apr. 19, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 81007, 2002 WL
737495 (dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus appropriate when petitioner
named the state rather than the sheriff—his custodian as the respondent).
{¶3} A review of the complaint reveals Petitioner has also failed to attach the
necessary commitment papers in compliance with R.C. 2725.04(D).
{¶4} 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. 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.
{¶5} We find failure to include all pertinent commitment papers has made a
complete understanding of the petition impossible.
Morrow County, Case No. 12-CA-1 3
{¶6} We further note a “Court of Appeals [is] required to dismiss [a] petition for
habeas corpus sua sponte, where defendant failed to verify the petition for habeas
corpus, support his complaint with an affidavit specifying the details of the claim, attach
a copy of commitment or cause of detention to petition, name the correct respondent, or
attach an affidavit describing each civil action or appeal filed by the relator within
previous five years in any state or federal court. R.C. 2725.04(B, D), 2969.25.” Melton v.
State 2002 WL 31040689 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.).
{¶7} The petition filed does not contain an affidavit detailing Petitioner's prior
civil actions.
{¶8} Petitioner's failure to include these items requires dismissal of this case.
By: Hoffman, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Farmer, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
Morrow County, Case No. 12-CA-1 4
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MORROW COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Respondent :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
JOHN I. WILLEKE :
:
Petitioner : Case No. 12-CA-1
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Costs to Petitioner.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER