Allen v. Muskingum Cty. Sheriff

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Allen v. Muskingum Cty. Sheriff, 2011-Ohio-3325.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JOHN DALE ALLEN Petitioner -vsMUSKINGUM COUNTY SHERIFF Respondent : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. CASE NO. CT11-0023 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 23, 2011 APPEARANCES: For Petitioner Pro se: For Respondent: JOHN DALE ALLEN c/o 28 N. 4th St, - SB4 Zanesville, OH 43701 NO APPEARANCE 2 Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0023 Delaney, J., {¶1} Petitioner, John Dale Allen, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging unlawful detention based upon his contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner and set excessive bail. We find it unnecessary to address those claims because Appellant has failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a habeas petition. {¶2} A review of the Petition reveals Petitioner has failed to attach the necessary commitment papers in compliance with R.C. 2725.04(D). 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 (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 602 N.E.2d 602. See also, Boyd v. Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388, 696 N.E.2d 568, 1998-Ohio-221, wherein the Supreme Court held, Habeas corpus petitioner's failure to attach pertinent commitment papers to his petition rendered petition fatally defective, and petitioner's subsequent attachment of commitment papers to his post-judgment motion did not cure the defect. R.C. 2725.04(D). {¶3} We likewise find failure to include all pertinent entries has made a complete understanding of the Petition impossible. 3 Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0023 {¶4} For this reason, Petitioner s request for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. {¶5} PETITION FOR WRIT DENIED. {¶6} COSTS TO PETITIONER. By: Delaney, J., Wise, P.J., and Edwards, J. concur ____________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY ____________________________ HON. JOHN W. WISE ____________________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS 4 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JOHN DALE ALLEN Petitioner -vsMUSKINGUM COUNTY SHERIFF Respondent : : : : : : : : : CASE NO. CT11-0023 JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, Petitioner s Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby denied. Costs taxes to Petitioner. ______________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY ______________________________ HON. JOHN W. WISE ______________________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS

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.