Hazel v. Knab

Annotate this Case

Corey Hazel filed a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from prison. With his petition, Hazel filed an affidavit of indigency and sought waiver of prepayment of the court's filing fees. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the petition was defective because Hazel failed to include in his affidavit of indigency a statement setting forth his balance in his inmate account for the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the court of appeals did not err in finding the petition defective because (1) the petition was in violation of section 2969.25(C), (2) as Hazel could have raised his claims in a previous habeas corpus case, res judicata barred Hazel from filing a successive habeas corpus petition, and (3) as Hazel's petition did not state a facially valid habeas corpus claim, the appellate court's dismissal without prior notice was proper.

Download PDF

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Hazel v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4608.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-4608 HAZEL, APPELLANT, v. KNAB, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Hazel v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4608.] (No. 2011-0825 Submitted September 7, 2011 Decided September 15, 2011.) Habeas corpus Dismissal of petition affirmed R.C. 2969.25(C) Failure to include certified statement of inmate account balance in affidavit of indigency is fatal defect. APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 11CA3231. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Corey Hazel, for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from prison. As the court of appeals correctly held, Hazel s petition was defective because although he filed an affidavit of indigency and sought waiver of prepayment of the court s filing fees, he failed to include in his affidavit of indigency a statement setting forth the balance in his inmate account for each of SUPREME COURT OF OHIO the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier, in violation of R.C. 2969.25(C). The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate s action to dismissal. State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. Hazel s subsequent filing of the statement did not cure the defect. See R.C. 2969.25(C); see also Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, ¶ 9. And although Hazel attempts to excuse his noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) by citing a purported prison policy, which he attached to his reply brief, we cannot consider any evidence that is not part of the record on appeal. See State ex rel. Albourque v. Terry, 128 Ohio St.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-1913, 947 N.E.2d 169, ¶ 3. {¶ 2} Moreover, because Hazel either raised or could have raised his claims in a previous habeas corpus case, see Hazel v. Knab, 125 Ohio St.3d 1460, 2010-Ohio-2753, 928 N.E.2d 736, res judicata barred him from filing a successive habeas corpus petition in the court of appeals. See Goins v. Pineda, 128 Ohio St.3d 358, 2011-Ohio-529, 944 N.E.2d 660. {¶ 3} Finally, because Hazel s petition did not state a facially valid habeas corpus claim, the appellate court s dismissal without prior notice was proper and in accordance with the basic, summary procedure of R.C. Chapter 2725. Wells v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 308, 2007-Ohio-1955, 865 N.E.2d 46, ¶ 9; Chari v. Vore (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 744 N.E.2d 763. {¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Hazel s habeas corpus petition, and we affirm the judgment. Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ Corey Hazel, pro se. 2 January Term, 2011 Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Hilda Rosenberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. ______________________ 3

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.