[Cite as May-Dillard v. State, 2018-Ohio-4571.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
MAURICE A. MAY-DILLARD, : PER CURIAM OPINION
Petitioner, :
CASE NO. 2018-A-0044
- vs - :
STATE OF OHIO, :
Respondent. :
Original Action for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Judgment: Petition dismissed.
Maurice A. May-Dillard, pro se, PID: A301-181, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, 201
Thompson Road, P.O. Box 8000, Conneaut, OH 44030 (Petitioner).
Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and Sarah Pierce, Assistant Attorney General,
State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215 (For
Respondent).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Petitioner, Maurice A. May-Dillard, has filed a petition for habeas corpus
relief. Although it is difficult to determine the nature of his arguments, he appears to
argue the proceedings leading to his commitment were so illegal he is entitled to
immediate release.
{¶2} A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and therefore is
available only “‘where there is an unlawful restraint of a person's liberty and there is no
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.’” Johnson v. Timmerman–Cooper, 93
Ohio St.3d 614, 616 (2001), quoting Pegan v. Crawmer, 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 99 (1996).
{¶3} Initially, R.C. 2725.04(D) requires a habeas corpus petitioner to include
“[a] copy of the commitment or cause of detention * * * if it can be procured without
impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or detention is without
legal authority, such fact must appear.” Id. Petitioner asserts he is entitled to release
from convictions in Warren County and Cuyahoga County. He only provides case
numbers and fails to set forth the nature of the cases. The Supreme Court has held
failure to attach commitment papers renders a petition fundamentally and fatally
defective. Bloss v. Rogers, 65 Ohio St.3d 145 (1992). In Bloss, the Court observed:
“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, supra, at 146. On this basis alone, the
petition must be dismissed.
{¶4} Additionally, our research reveals petitioner has previously filed a petition
for writ of habeas corpus in the Eighth District Court of Appeals in which he contested
the lawfulness of his convictions in the Cuyahoga County cases. In May-Dillard v.
State, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105064, 2017-Ohio-194, the court dismissed the petition
on both procedural and substantive grounds. In doing so, the court acknowledged an
additional conviction, which our research demonstrates was a Warren County
conviction, that petitioner had not contested in the Eighth District case. Id. at ¶2. The
Supreme Court of Ohio has held that res judicata is applicable to successive petitions
2
for habeas corpus. Hudlin v. Alexander, 63 Ohio St.3d 153, 156 (1992). Because
petitioner has previously filed a petition for habeas corpus contesting the lawfulness of
the Cuyahoga County cases, and could have contested the validity of his confinement in
the Warren County cases in that petition but did not, the instant petition is barred by res
judicata. For this additional reason, the petition must be dismissed.
{¶5} For the above reasons, the petition for habeas corpus is dismissed and all
pending motions are overruled as moot.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J., CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., COLLEEN MARY
O’TOOLE, J., concur.
3