State v. Vendler

[Cite as State v. Vendler, 

.]


                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                      :

                 Respondent,                        :
                                                                No. 114182
                 v.                                 :

VIKTOR VENDLER,                                     :

                 Petitioner.                        :


                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: WRIT DISMISSED
                 DATED: July 31, 2024


                                        Writ of Habeas Corpus
                                         Order No. 576487


                                              Appearances:

                 Viktor Vendler, pro se.


FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, J.:

                On July 19, 2024, the petitioner, Viktor Vendler, filed what he styled as

a “Motion to habeous [sic] corpus.” The “petition” reads as follows: “Review

criminal case No. CR-24-692453-A for legality and due process/civil rights, court
procedures, and rules of evidence; thereafter, please return said criminal case to

status quo.”1 This court dismisses this “petition” for multiple pleading deficiencies.

             R.C. 2725.04(D) requires a habeas corpus petitioner to include a copy

of the commitment or cause of detention. Vendler attached nothing to his filing.

This is sufficient to dismiss the “petition.” State ex rel. Davis v. Sheldon, 2022-

Ohio-2789, and Wilson v. Kochevar, 

 (8th Dist.).

             R.C. 2725.04 further requires a habeas corpus petition to be verified.

In Chari v. Vore, 

 (2001), the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled:

“‘Verification’ means a ‘formal declaration made in the presence of an authorized

officer, such as a notary public, by which one swears to the truth of the statements

in the document.’” Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Ed. 1999). The Supreme Court of

Ohio then reversed the court of appeals’ granting of the writ and awarding of relief

and held that the cause should have been summarily dismissed because the petition

was procedurally defective. Vendler did not verify his “petition.” Griffin v. McFaul,

.

             Vendler also failed to name the proper respondent. R.C. 2725.04(B)

requires that the petitioner specify the officer or name of the person by whom the

prisoner is so confined or restrained. In Hamilton v. Collins, 

, ¶ 3



      1 In the underlying case, State v. Vendler, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-24-692453-A, the

grand jury indicted Vendler on two counts of aggravated murder that occurred in
September 2023, kidnapping, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a corpse. The docket
shows that he was arrested on May 29, 2024. The trial court has appointed counsel, set bail
at $1,000,000, and scheduled pretrials.
(11th Dist.), the court of appeals held that in considering the legal sufficiency of a

habeas-corpus claim, “such claims can be maintained only against the jailer or

warden who presently has legal custody of the individual.” Using the case caption

of the underlying case does not fulfill this requirement. State v. Donaldson, 2014-

Ohio-5558 (8th Dist.).

             R.C. 2725.04 provides that a writ of habeas corpus shall be by petition.

Filing a motion for an extraordinary writ is improper and grounds for dismissal.

State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula, 

 (1998).

             Accordingly, this court dismisses this “motion to habeous [sic] corpus.”

Petitioner to pay costs. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties notice

of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

             Writ dismissed.


________________________________________
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR