1997 OHIO 128 - Workman v. Shiplevy

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

80 Ohio St.3d 174

.]




           WORKMAN, APPELLANT, V. SHIPLEVY, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
                  [Cite as Workman v. Shiplevy,

1997-Ohio-128

.]
Habeas corpus to compel release from Lima Correctional Institution—Petition
        dismissed for failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D).
    (No. 97-870—Submitted September 9, 1997—Decided October 29, 1997.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. CA97020009.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In February 1997, appellant, Kenneth D. Workman, an inmate at Lima
Correctional Institution, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Allen County
for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Warden Carole J. Shiplevy, to
immediately release him from prison. Workman claimed that he was entitled to the
writ because of a 1991 nunc pro tunc entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas. Workman attached a copy of the entry to his petition. Shiplevy
filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. The court of appeals granted Shiplevy’s
motion and dismissed the petition because Workman did not attach copies of all
pertinent commitment papers to his petition.
        {¶ 2} The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
                                  __________________
        Kenneth D. Workman, pro se.
        Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Donald G. Keyser, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 3} Workman asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his
habeas corpus petition. In order to withstand dismissal, a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus must conform to R.C. 2725.04 and state with particularity the
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




extraordinary circumstances entitling the petitioner to the writ. McBroom v. Russell
(1996),

77 Ohio St.3d 47, 48

671 N.E.2d 10, 11

.
        {¶ 4} The court of appeals correctly held that Workman did not comply with
R.C. 2725.04(D) because he did not attach all his pertinent commitment papers.
Brown v. Rogers (1995),

72 Ohio St.3d 339, 340-341

650 N.E.2d 422, 423

. The
nunc pro tunc entry attached to Workman’s petition references sentences in nine
different criminal cases which were not attached to the petition. Although
Workman’s claim is primarily based on the nunc pro tunc entry, the court of appeals
did not err in holding that the other judgments referred to in that entry were
pertinent and that it was impossible to have a complete understanding of
Workman’s claim without them. Bloss v. Rogers (1992),

65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146

602 N.E.2d 602

.
        {¶ 5} In addition, even assuming that Workman’s contentions on appeal are
correct, reversal of the court of appeals’ judgment is unwarranted because
Workman also failed to verify his petition in accordance with R.C. 2725.04.
McBroom,

77 Ohio St.3d at 48

671 N.E.2d at 11

; Messer v. McAninch (1997),

77 Ohio St.3d 1511

673 N.E.2d 1383

.
        {¶ 6} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed the
petition.
        {¶ 7} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
                                                                Judgment affirmed.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                         2