Arthur v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Arthur v. State, 2010-Ohio-3736.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95480 MR. DERRICK ARTHUR PETITIONER vs. STATE OF OHIO RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: PETITION DISMISSED Writ of Habeas Corpus Motion No. 436326 Order No. 436670 RELEASE DATE: FOR PETITIONER August 11, 2010 2 Derrick Arthur, pro se Inmate No. 444-702 S.O.C.F. P.O. Box 45699 Lucasville, Ohio 45699 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Mary McGrath Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J.: {¶ 1} Derrick Arthur has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the following reasons, we grant the motion to dismiss as filed on behalf of the state of Ohio. {¶ 2} Arthur s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is procedurally defective and thus subject to dismissal because: {¶ 3} (1) the petition is not verified as required by R.C. 2725.04; {¶ 4} (2) the petition fails to contain copies of all commitment papers as required by R.C. 2725.04(D); 3 {¶ 5} (3) the petition fails to contain a sworn and notarized affidavit that describes each civil action or appeal filed within the previous five years as required by R.C. 2969.25(A); {¶ 6} (4) the petition fails to contain a statement that sets forth the balance in the petitioner/inmate s account for the preceding six months and/or all of the cash and things of value as owned by the petitioner/inmate as required by R.C. 2969.25(C); {¶ 7} (5) the petition fails to contain a sworn and notarized affidavit that complies with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). {¶ 8} Tisdale v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-3833, 870 N.E.2d 1191; Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 2001-Ohio-49, 744 N.E.2d 763. See, also, State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 914 N.E.2d 402; Martin v. Woods, 121 Ohio St.3d 609, 2009-Ohio-1928, 906 N.E.2d 1113; Humphrey v. Ohio Water Parks, Inc. (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 403, 646 N.E.2d 908; State ex rel. Davis, Cuyahoga App. No. 90533, 2008-Ohio-584; Morris v. Bureau of Sentence Computation, Cuyahoga App. No. 89517, 2007-Ohio-1444; State ex rel. McKay v. Corrigan, Cuyahoga App. No. 88340. 4 {¶ 9} Finally, Arthur has failed to state with any specificity the extraordinary circumstances that would allow this court to issue a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf. {¶ 10} Second, in order to avoid dismissal, a petitioner must state with particularity the extraordinary circumstances entitling him to habeas corpus relief. State ex rel. Wilcox v. Seider (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 412, 414, 667 N.E.2d 1220, 1222. Unsupported conclusions contained in a habeas copus petition are not considered admitted and are insufficient to withstand dismissal. State ex rel. Carrion v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 637, 638, 687 N.E.2d 759, 760. Chari v. Vore, supra, at 328. {¶ 11} Herein, Arthur s petition contains unsupported legal claims and conclusions, such as mental illness and ineffective assistance of trial counsel, that do not support the granting of a writ of habeas corpus. Cf. Patterson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147; In re: Jackson v. Phillips, et al, Cuyahoga App. No. 91963, 2009-Ohio-125. {¶ 12} Accordingly, we grant the state of Ohio s motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Costs to Arthur. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B). Petition dismissed. 5 SEAN C. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ANN DYKE, J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.