Dilliard v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Dilliard v. State, 2017-Ohio-194.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 105064 MAURICE A. MAY-DILLARD PETITIONER vs. STATE OF OHIO RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: PETITION DENIED Writ of Habeas Corpus Motion No. 501063 Order No. 502015 RELEASE DATE: January 13, 2017 FOR PETITIONER Maurice A. May-Dillard Inmate No. A301-181 Mansfield Correctional Institution 1150 North Main Street P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 TIM McCORMACK, P.J.: {¶1} On October 12, 2016, the petitioner, Maurice May-Dillard, commenced this habeas corpus action. Although it is difficult to discern his specific claim(s), he seems to be arguing that his proceedings were so illegal that he is entitled to immediate release. He claims that he was given three sentences for two crimes, that a bench warrant was improperly issued for his arrest, and that the state and defense counsel took advantage of his youth, ignorance, and hard life to obtain guilty pleas for kidnapping and aggravated robbery.1 On October 18, 2016, the state of Ohio, as the named respondent, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of multiple pleading defects and failure to state a cognizable claim in habeas corpus. May-Dillard filed his objections to the dispositive motion on November 14, 2016 and December 12, 2016. For the following reasons, this court grants the state’s motion for summary judgment and denies the petition for habeas corpus. {¶2} First, the petition is fatally defective. R.C. 2725.04(D) requires a habeas corpus petitioner to include a copy of the commitment or cause of detention. May-Dillard attached only a copy of his arraignment entry in one of his cases.2 This is 1The two underlying cases are State v. May-Dillard, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-94-312347-ZA (“Case One”), and State v. May-Dillard, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-94-316029-ZA (“Case Two”). A review of the dockets shows that in late 1994, in Case One, May-Dillard was charged with aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and failure to comply with the order/signal of a police officer. May-Dillard pleaded guilty to an amended kidnapping count, and the other charges were nolled. The judge sentenced him to seven to 25 years. In Case Two, he pleaded guilty to the sole charge of aggravated robbery, and the judge sentenced him to seven to 25 years concurrent to the sentence in Case One. 2The entry does not include the case name or number or even the judge’s name. insufficient. Compliance with R.C. 2725.04(D) requires attachment of all of the journal entries causing petitioner’s detention, and a partial entry from one case is not sufficient. State ex rel. Jackson v. Sloan, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5106; and Wilson v. Kochevar, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84516, 2004-Ohio-2984. Even if the court were inclined to consider the state’s attachments to its motion for summary judgment of his sentencing journal entries in Case One and Case Two, a review of May-Dillard’s Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s webpage shows that he also is under confinement for a third case, possession of deadly weapon under detention. May-Dillard did not fulfill the statute’s requirements. {¶3} R.C. 2725.04 further 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 ruled: “‘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 * * *.” The Supreme Court of Ohio then reversed the court of appeals’ granting of the writ and awarding of relief and held that the cause should have been summarily dismissed because the petition was procedurally defective. May-Dillard’s submissions have no verifications, only his statement in his objections that “I truly swear to the courts that I had no knowledge of * * *.” However, it was not notarized. Therefore, it is insufficient to be a proper verification or affidavit under Ohio law. 2007-Ohio-5506, 876 N.E.2d 527. Griffin v. McFaul, 116 Ohio St.3d 30, {¶4} Moreover, May-Dillard’s claim of excessive sentence is unsupported. The dockets of Case One and Case Two do not show a third sentence, and May-Dillard offers no evidence of such a sentence other than his unverified assertion. Furthermore, to obtain relief in habeas corpus a petitioner must establish that the court lacked jurisdiction. R.C. 2725.05 and Pollock v. Morris, 35 Ohio St.3d 117, 518 N.E.2d 1205 (1988). ‘“[S]entencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus.’” State ex rel. Sneed v. Anderson, 114 Ohio St.3d 11, 2007-Ohio-2454, 866 N.E.2d 1084, ¶ 7, quoting Majoros v. Collins, 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038 (1992). {¶5} May-Dillard’s claim that he was a minor is unfounded. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s website lists his birthday as September 12, 1973. Thus, he was 21 years old when he faced these charges in late 1994. {¶6} His claim that the prosecutor and his own attorney took advantage of his youth, ignorance, and hard life to obtain a guilty plea does not question the trial court’s jurisdiction to try criminal cases of robbery and kidnapping. Thus, relief in habeas corpus is not available. His proper remedy was appeal or post-trial motion arguing that his plea was not voluntary.3 An adequate remedy at law precludes a writ of habeas corpus. Leyman v. Bradshaw, 146 Ohio St.3d 522, 2016-Ohio-1093, 59 N.E.3d 1236. {¶7} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denies the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner to pay costs. 3The dockets of both Case One and Case Two show that he filed a motion to withdraw plea and a motion to dismiss charges in 2007. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). {¶8} Petition denied. ________________________________________ TIM McCORMACK, PRESIDING JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, 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.