[Cite as State ex rel. Boyd v. Bova, 2013-Ohio-4199.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 100240
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.,
ANTHONY BOYD
PETITIONER
vs.
FRANK BOVA
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
PETITION DISMISSED
Writ of Habeas Corpus
Motion No. 467517
Order No. 468016
RELEASE DATE: September 25, 2013
FOR PETITIONER
Anthony Boyd, pro se
Inmate No. 0129187
Cuyahoga County Jail
P.O. Box 5600
Cleveland, Ohio 44101
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Mary H. McGrath
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center - 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
{¶1} On August 12, 2013, the petitioner, Anthony Boyd, commenced what he
styled as a “Writ of Habeas Corpus” against the respondent, Frank Bova. Boyd is the
defendant in State v. Boyd, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-564529-A. On May 7, 2013, the trial
court found that Boyd had violated the terms of his community control sanctions and
sentenced him to the Cuyahoga County Jail for a term of six months with “no jail time
credit.” Boyd moved for summary judgment and attached journal entries from his case.
Boyd generally asserts that he “has over 6 months of jail credit already served” but
presents no evidentiary basis in support. Boyd further alleges that he is being illegally
detained due to his belief that the trial court’s sentencing journal entry is void for not
awarding him any jail-time credit. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, which we
grant, and Boyd’s motion for summary judgment is denied for the reasons that follow.
{¶2} R.C. 2725.04 requires the petition to be verified. In Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio
St.3d 323, 2001-Ohio-49, 744 N.E.2d 763, the Supreme Court of Ohio held,
“‘Verification’ means a ‘formal declaration made in the presence of an authorized officer,
such as a notary public, by which one swears to the truth of the statement in the
document.’ Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (7 Ed.1999) 1556 ***.” Id. (reversing the
court of appeal’ granting of the writ because the procedurally defective petition should
have been summarily dismissed); see also Griffin v. McFaul, 116 Ohio St.3d 30,
2007-Ohio-5506, 876 N.E.2d 527, ¶ 4 (affirming denial of writ of habeas corpus for
reasons including that the “purported verification was ineffective because it was not
notarized.”) Boyd’s petition is not verified.
{¶3} Further, Boyd’s affidavit specifying the details of his claim and his
purported R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit, describing his civil actions in the past five years, are
not notarized. Likewise, his affidavit of indigency is not notarized. Although Boyd
indicates that respondent does not offer notary services, this does not exempt him from
procedural compliance with the law that requires these affidavits to be notarized. State ex
rel. Campbell v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95463, 2010-Ohio-4369, ¶ 11 (holding
petitioner is not exempt from the requirement of providing notarized affidavits on
grounds that the county jail does not provide notary services).
{¶4} Boyd attached a document titled Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office Trust
Accounts, but it is not certified as required by R.C. 2969.25(C).
{¶5} Boyd has not included the addresses of the parties in the caption as required
by Civ.R. 10(A), which may also be a ground for dismissal. Clarke v. McFaul, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 89447, 2007-Ohio-2520, ¶ 5.
{¶6} The many pleading deficiencies warrant dismissal.
{¶7} Accordingly, this court grants respondent’s motion and dismisses the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is
denied. Petitioner to pay costs. The court further directs the Clerk of the Eighth District
Court of Appeals to serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ.R.
58(B).
{¶8} Petition dismissed.
_________________________________
KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR