Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brooks v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Ashtabula

March 31, 2017

JAMES BROOKS, Petitioner,
v.
ASHTABULA COUNTY SHERIFF WILLIAM JOHNSON, Respondent.

         Original Action for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

         Judgment: Petitions dismissed.

          William B. Norman, Norman & Tayeh, LLC, 11509 Lorain Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44111 (For Petitioner).

          Nicholas A. Iarocci, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Rebecca K. Divoky, Assistant Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Respondent).

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM

         {¶1} On December 22 and 27, 2016, James Brooks petitioned this court to issue its writ of habeas corpus directed to William Johnson, Ashtabula County Sheriff. Sheriff Johnson moved to dismiss the petitions on December 29, 2016. For the reasons stated, we dismiss the petitions.

         {¶2} R.C. 2725.04 governs writs of habeas corpus, and provides:

          {¶3} "Application for the writ of habeas corpus shall be by petition, signed and verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person for him, and shall specify:

         {¶4} "(A) That the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned, or restrained of his liberty;

         {¶5} "(B) The officer, or name of the person by whom the prisoner is so confined or restrained; or, if both are unknown or uncertain, such officer or person may be described by an assumed appellation and the person who is served with the writ is deemed the person intended;

         {¶6} "(C) The place where the prisoner is so imprisoned or restrained, if known;

         {¶7} "(D) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person shall be exhibited, if it can be procured without impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or detention is without legal authority, such fact must appear."

         {¶8} Mr. Brooks' petitions are unverified, and thus, subject to dismissal. Malone v. Lane, 96 Ohio St.3d 415, 2002-Ohio-4908, ¶6.

         {¶9} Mr. Brooks has not attached a copy of his commitment papers, which also subjects his petitions to dismissal. R.C. 2725.04(D); Waites v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.