Davis v. Wilson - 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

[Cite as Davis v. Wilson, 100 Ohio St.3d 269, 2003-Ohio-5898.]

DAVIS, APPELLANT, v. WILSON, WARDEN, APPELLEE, ET AL.
[Cite as Davis v. Wilson, 100 Ohio St.3d 269, 2003-Ohio-5898.]
Habeas corpus sought to compel the vacation of relator's conviction of
felonious assault with firearm and prior-conviction specifications and
the dismissal of his indictment with prejudice -- Court of appeals'
dismissal of petition affirmed.
(No. 2003-1127 -- Submitted October 20, 2003 -- Decided November 19, 2003.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No. 2003-T-0049, 2003-
Ohio-2840.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} In December 1993, the Youngstown Police Department issued a
warrant for the arrest of appellant, Edward A. Davis, on a felony assault charge.
In the same month, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority ("APA") issued a separate
warrant for Davis's arrest for a parole violation. In June 1996, Davis was arrested
in Las Vegas, Nevada, on the APA warrant and was informed of the Youngstown
warrant. Davis waived extradition and was returned to Ohio.
{¶2} In 1996, the Mahoning County Grand Jury indicted Davis on a
charge of felonious assault with specifications. In April 1998, after numerous
continuances requested by Davis, the common pleas court convicted Davis of
felonious assault with firearm and prior-conviction specifications and sentenced
him to an aggregate prison term of 15 to 18 years.
{¶3} In March 2003, Davis filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for
Trumbull County for a writ of habeas corpus, naming as respondents appellee,
Trumbull Correctional Institution Warden Julius C. Wilson, and Mahoning
County Prosecuting Attorney Paul Gains. Davis sought an order vacating his

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
conviction and dismissing his indictment with prejudice. He claimed that his
sentencing court lacked jurisdiction because he was not brought to trial within the
120-day period specified in Article IV(c) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers
("IAD"), as enacted in Ohio in R.C. 2963.30. See, also, Article V(c) of the IAD.
Davis further contended that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance
of counsel by not raising the IAD issue.
{¶4} The respondents moved to dismiss the petition, and in May 2003,
the court of appeals granted their motions and dismissed Davis's petition.
{¶5} In his appeal as of right, Davis asserts that the court of appeals
erred in dismissing his petition. Davis claims that he is entitled to the writ
because the state failed to try him under the speedy-trial requirement of the IAD.
He also claims that Gains was not entitled to dismissal because Gains did not
properly serve his motion on him. For the reasons that follow, Davis's claims
lack merit.
{¶6} First, the IAD is inapplicable to Davis, who was not serving a term
of imprisonment in Nevada when a detainer was lodged against him. The IAD is
a compact among 48 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government,
which "enables a participating State to gain custody of a prisoner incarcerated in
another jurisdiction, in order to try him on criminal charges." Reed v. Farley
(1994), 512 U.S. 339, 341, 114 S.Ct. 2291, 129 L.Ed.2d 277.
{¶7} As the court of appeals correctly concluded, Davis's IAD claim is
meritless. " `[T]he Interstate Agreement on Detainers does not apply to a person
who is imprisoned awaiting disposition of pending charges and who has not been
sentenced to a term of imprisonment.' " United States v. Muhammad (C.A.6,
1991), 948 F.2d 1449, 1453, quoting United States v. Roberts (C.A.6, 1977), 548
F.2d 665, 671; Article IV(a) of the IAD ("The appropriate officer of the
jurisdiction in which an untried indictment, information or complaint is pending
shall be entitled to have a prisoner against whom he has lodged a detainer and
2

January Term, 2003
who is serving a term of imprisonment in any party State made available * * *"
[emphasis added]). See, generally, Annotation, Validity, Construction, and
Application of Interstate Agreement on Detainers (1980), 98 A.L.R. 3d 160, 185-
187, Section 5[d]. Davis was not serving a term of imprisonment in Nevada for
any conviction when the Ohio detainer was issued.
{¶8} Second, the continuances granted upon Davis's requests tolled the
running of the 120-day period in Article IV(c). State v. Wells (1994), 94 Ohio
App.3d 48, 59, 640 N.E.2d 217.
{¶9} Third, Davis's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective is not
cognizable in habeas corpus. Brown v. Leonard (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 593, 716
N.E.2d 183.
{¶10} Fourth, as to Davis's appeal against Gains, Davis's notice of
appeal did not refer to Gains in any way, and its proof of service did not claim
service on Gains. In any event, despite Davis's assertions to the contrary, the
record establishes that appellee Gains properly served his motion to dismiss on
him.
{¶11} Finally, the court of appeals correctly held that Gains was not a
proper respondent for the habeas corpus petition. See, e.g., Tate v. Bernard (Nov.
21, 2001), Trumbull App. No. 2001-T-0087, 2001 WL 1497206 ("the writ will lie
only against the individual who is directly responsible for keeping the petitioner
in custody"); Jackson v. State (Apr. 19, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 81007, 2002
WL 737495 (dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus appropriate when
petitioner named the state rather than the sheriff--his custodian--as the
respondent); cf. State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Auglaize Cty. Court of Common Pleas
(1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 257, 258, 719 N.E.2d 543 (affirmed dismissal of habeas
corpus petition in child-custody dispute because, among other reasons, petitioner
did not name his former wife, who had custody of the child, as a respondent in his
petition).
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶12} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON,
O'CONNOR and O'DONNELL, JJ., concur.
__________________

Edward A. Davis, pro se.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Price, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
__________________
4