2001 OHIO 298 - Buoscio v. Bagley

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

91 Ohio St.3d 134

.]




             BUOSCIO, APPELLANT, v. BAGLEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
                     [Cite as Buoscio v. Bagley,

2001-Ohio-298

.]
Habeas corpus to compel relator’s release from prison—Dismissal of petition
        affirmed.
      (No. 00-1691—Submitted January 31, 2001—Decided March 7, 2001.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 00-CA-64.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} In July 1991, a Summit County Grand Jury returned an indictment
charging appellant, Samuel Buoscio, with aggravated murder, having a weapon
while under a disability, and various specifications. The Summit County Court of
Common Pleas granted the state’s motion to amend the aggravated murder charge
to voluntary manslaughter, and Buoscio pled guilty to the amended charge and an
accompanying firearm specification. In January 1992, the common pleas court
sentenced Buoscio to an aggregate prison term of thirteen to twenty-eight years.
        {¶ 2} In July 2000, Buoscio filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for
Richland County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from
prison. Buoscio claimed that the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to amend
his indictment and convict and sentence him for voluntary manslaughter. In August
2000, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the petition because of “petitioner’s
failure to demonstrate on the face of said Petition that same was served upon the
named respondent [Buoscio’s prison warden].”
        {¶ 3} In his appeal of right, Buoscio claims that the court erred by
dismissing his petition based on his failure to include a proof of service in his
petition. His warden counters that the court of appeals was required to dismiss the
                                   SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




petition because of the mandatory language of Civ.R. 5(D).1 For the following
reasons, we hold that although the court’s rationale was incorrect, it did not err in
dismissing the petition.
         {¶ 4} The court of appeals dismissed Buoscio’s petition because his petition
did not include any proof of service. This reason is incorrect. “[W]hatever the
applicability of a particular Civil Rule, it is evident that R.C. Chapter 2725
prescribes a basic, summary procedure for bringing a habeas action.” Pegan v.
Crawmer (1995),

73 Ohio St.3d 607, 608-609

653 N.E.2d 659, 661

. Service of the
petition and the ordering of a return are required only if the petition states a facially
valid claim and the court allows the writ.

Id.,

73 Ohio St.3d at 609

653 N.E.2d at 661

; State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998),

82 Ohio St.3d 270, 271

695 N.E.2d 254, 255

.
         {¶ 5} In addition, even if the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service
were applicable here, Civ.R. 5(D) would still not apply to Buoscio’s petition
because it “governs the filing with the court of pleadings and papers subsequent to
the filing of the original complaint.” (Emphasis deleted and new emphasis added.)
Staff Note to July 1, 1971 Amendment of Civ.R. 5(D).
         {¶ 6} Nevertheless, we are not authorized to reverse a correct judgment
merely because erroneous reasons were given by the court of appeals. See Page v.
Riley (1999),

85 Ohio St.3d 621, 624

710 N.E.2d 690, 693

, and cases cited therein.
         {¶ 7} Dismissal of Buoscio’s petition was warranted because he challenged
the validity or sufficiency of his indictment, as amended, and this claim is not
cognizable in habeas corpus. See State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano (1998),

82 Ohio St.3d 410

696 N.E.2d 585

 (affirmance of dismissal of habeas corpus petition
claiming trial court improperly amended indictment charge of murder to a charge

1. Civ.R. 5(D) provides that “[a]ll papers, after the complaint, required to be served upon a party
shall be filed with the court within three days after service [and that] [p]apers filed with the court
shall not be considered until proof of service is endorsed thereon or separately filed.”




                                                  2
                                  January Term, 2001




of involuntary manslaughter); cf., also, State v. Shane (1992),

63 Ohio St.3d 630, 632

590 N.E.2d 272, 274

 (voluntary manslaughter is an inferior-degree offense of
murder).
       {¶ 8} Based on the foregoing, although the court’s rationale was incorrect,
its dismissal of Buoscio’s petition was proper. Therefore, 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.
                             __________________
       Samuel Buoscio, pro se.
       Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Karen E. Carter, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
                             __________________




                                          3