Pointer v. Russo
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant was convicted of murder, sexual battery, and other offenses and was sentenced to fifteen years to life. Appellant filed an action in habeas corpus seeking an order to compel Judge Joseph Russo to order his release from prison and asserting that a sex-offender-classification hearing was pending before Judge Russo and that the hearing was in violation of his plea agreement. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition was correctly dismissed based on its numerous procedural defaults and because Appellant had an adequate alternate remedy at law.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Pointer v. Russo, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2078.] 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. 2015-OHIO-2078 POINTER, APPELLANT, v. RUSSO, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Pointer v. Russo, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2078.] Habeas corpus—Failure to attach commitment papers—Failure to verify petition—R.C. 2725.04—Adequate remedy at law available through appeal—Dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 2014-1487—Submitted February 3, 2015—Decided June 3, 2015.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 101548, 2014-Ohio-3244. _____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the Eighth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of petitioner-appellant Dennis Pointer’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus because of the numerous procedural deficiencies in his petition and because he has an adequate alternate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 2} Pointer was convicted of various offenses, including murder and sexual battery, and is currently serving a sentence of 15 years to life. Pointer filed an action in habeas corpus in which he asserts that a sex-offender-classification hearing is pending before respondent-appellee, Judge Joseph D. Russo, and that the hearing is in violation of his plea agreement. He seeks an order to compel Judge Russo to order his release from prison. {¶ 3} Judge Russo filed a motion to dismiss the petition, which the court of appeals granted. Pointer appealed. {¶ 4} The court of appeals correctly dismissed the case based on the numerous procedural defaults in Pointer’s petition. Among many other problems with the petition, Pointer failed to attach any commitment papers in violation of R.C. 2725.04(D). Such a failure is fatal to a petition for habeas corpus. State ex rel. McCuller v. Callahan, 98 Ohio St.3d 307, 2003-Ohio-858, 784 N.E.2d 108, ¶ 4, citing State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 95 Ohio St.3d 70, 71, 765 N.E.2d 356 (2002), Malone v. Lane, 96 Ohio St.3d 415, 2002-Ohio4908, 775 N.E.2d 527, at ¶ 6, and Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 328, 744 N.E.2d 763 (2001). Moreover, although not mentioned by the court of appeals, the complaint did not comply with the verification requirement of R.C. 2725.04. Malone at ¶ 6; Chari at 328. {¶ 5} The court of appeals also properly dismissed the complaint because Pointer has an adequate alternate remedy at law in that he may appeal any adverse ruling resulting from the sexual classification hearing on all the grounds that he brings up in his habeas action, including violation of a plea agreement. Plassman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 141 Ohio St.3d 14, 2014-Ohio-4033, 21 N.E.3d 271, ¶ 4, citing Arnett v. Sheets, 4th Dist. Ross No. 10CA3156, 2010-Ohio-3985, ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Rowe v. McCown, 108 Ohio St.3d 183, 2006-Ohio-548, 842 N.E.2d 51, at ¶ 5. Judgment affirmed. 2 January Term, 2015 O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. O’DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only. _____________________ Dennis Pointer, pro se. Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 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.
