State ex rel. Baker v. Court of Common Pleas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Baker v. Court of Common Pleas, 2016-Ohio-7769.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. MICHAEL L. BAKER Petitioner -vsCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS/ ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. CASE NO. 2016CA00065 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus JUDGMENT: Dismissed DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 14, 2016 APPEARANCES: For Petitioner For Respondent MICHAEL L. BAKER, Pro Se 200 High Street S. W. Apt. 702 Canton, OH 44701 JOHN D. FERRERO Stark County Prosecuting Attorney By: KRISTINE W. BEARD Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510 Canton, OH 44702-1413 Stark County, Case No. 2016CA00065 2 Farmer, P.J. {¶1} Petitioner, Michael L. Baker, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In paragraph four of the petition, he avers he is being unlawfully detained in the Belmont Correctional Institution. {¶2} A review of the complaint reveals Petitioner has failed to attach the necessary commitment papers in compliance with R.C. 2745.04(D). The only commitment paper attached to the petition is a sentencing entry out of Canton Municipal Court Case Number 2015CRB05765. This entry does not sentence Petitioner to prison. Therefore, there are additional commitment papers which have not been attached. {¶3} 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. 2745.04(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, 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 602 N.E.2d 602. {¶4} See also, Boyd v. Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388, 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. 2745.04(D). {¶5} We find the failure to include all pertinent commitment papers has made a Stark County, Case No. 2016CA00065 complete understanding of the Petition impossible. dismissed. By Farmer, P.J. Gwin, J. and Delaney, J. concur. SGF/as 1103 3 For this reason, the petition is
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.
