Workman v. Shiplevy - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

WORKMAN, APPELLANT, V. SHIPLEVY, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
[Cite as Workman v. Shiplevy (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
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.

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.

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. 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

extraordinary circumstances entitling the petitioner to the writ. McBroom v.
Russell (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 47, 48, 671 N.E.2d 10, 11.

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.

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.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed the petition.
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