Holloman v. Mohr

Annotate this Case

In 2005, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree-felony aggravated burglary and sentenced to six years in prison. After Petitioner was released an placed on postrelease control, he was found guilty of violating the conditions of his release and sentenced to a 150-day prison term. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court of appeals dismissed the petition sua sponte for failure to comply with the requirement that Petitioner file a copy of his commitment papers with his petition. Petitioner appealed. Thereafter, Petitioner was released from prison under supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal by the court of appeals, holding that, because Petitioner was no longer incarcerated, his petition was moot.

Download PDF

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Holloman v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2812.] 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-2812 HOLLOMAN, APPELLANT, v. MOHR, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Holloman v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2812.] Habeas corpus—Petition moot once petitioner has been released from incarceration—Judgment dismissing petition for writ affirmed. (No. 2014-1569—Submitted April 14, 2015—Decided July 15, 2015.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 14CA11. _____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the Fourth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by appellant, Martin L. Holloman, because Holloman is no longer incarcerated. {¶ 2} On November 4, 2005, Holloman was convicted of one charge of first-degree-felony aggravated burglary, and on December 5, 2005, the trial court sentenced him to a six-year prison term. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Holloman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-01, 2007-Ohio-840, ¶ 1. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 3} Holloman was released and placed on postrelease control in April 2011. In April 2014, he was found guilty of violating the conditions of his release and sentenced to a 150-day prison term. {¶ 4} Holloman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on July 1, 2014, in the Fourth District Court of Appeals. The warden filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment on July 31, 2014, but on the same day, the court of appeals dismissed the petition sua sponte for failure to comply with the requirement of R.C. 2725.04(D) that he file a copy of his commitment papers with his petition. Holloman appealed to this court on September 9, 2014. He was subsequently released from prison under supervision on September 20, 2014. {¶ 5} “ ‘ “If a habeas corpus petitioner seeking release is subsequently released, the petitioner’s habeas corpus claim is normally rendered moot.” ’ ” State ex rel. Hawkins v. Haas, 141 Ohio St.3d 98, 2014-Ohio-5196, 21 N.E.3d 1060, ¶ 4, quoting Crase v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-663, 842 N.E.2d 513, ¶ 5, quoting Larsen v. State, 92 Ohio St.3d 69, 69–70, 748 N.E.2d 72 (2001). {¶ 6} Because Holloman is no longer incarcerated, his petition is moot, and we therefore affirm the dismissal by the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. _____________________ Martin L. Holloman, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. _______________________ 2

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.