Boyd v. Money

Ohio Supreme Court

Boyd v. Money

1998 Ohio 221, 82 Ohio St. 3d 388

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 29, 1998

Docket1997-2546

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1998 Ohio 221 (Boyd v. Money) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyd v. Money, 1998 Ohio 221, 82 Ohio St. 3d 388 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 388.]

BOYD, APPELLANT, v. MONEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Boyd v. Money, 1998-Ohio-221.] Mandamus to compel release from commitment—Petition dismissed for failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). (No. 97-2546—Submitted June 24, 1998—Decided July 29, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-97-67. __________________ {¶ 1} In 1997, appellant, John A. Boyd, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Marion County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Boyd alleged that his parole had been improperly revoked but did not attach a copy of the commitment or cause of his detention, i.e., the parole revocation order he challenged. Boyd also did not allege in his petition that he could not obtain a copy of his commitment or cause of detention. {¶ 2} The court of appeals granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion of appellee, Boyd’s prison warden, and dismissed the petition. Boyd subsequently attached a copy of his 1993 parole revocation order to his motion for leave to amend his motion for relief from judgment. {¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ John A. Boyd, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Donald Gary Keyser, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Boyd did not comply with the R.C. 2725.04(D) requirement to attach his pertinent commitment papers. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 193, 194, 690 N.E.2d 7, 8; Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602, 603 (“These commitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the petition. Without them the petition is fatally defective.”). Boyd’s attachment of the purported cause of his commitment to his postjudgment motion did not cure the defect. See, e.g., Cornell v. Schotten (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 466, 466-467, 633 N.E.2d 1111, holding that warden’s attachment of a copy of the commitment order to motion to dismiss and petitioner’s memorandum in opposition to motion to dismiss did not cure R.C. 2725.04(D) defect. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 388.]

BOYD, APPELLANT, v. MONEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Boyd v. Money, 1998-Ohio-221.] Mandamus to compel release from commitment—Petition dismissed for failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). (No. 97-2546—Submitted June 24, 1998—Decided July 29, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-97-67. __________________ {¶ 1} In 1997, appellant, John A. Boyd, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Marion County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Boyd alleged that his parole had been improperly revoked but did not attach a copy of the commitment or cause of his detention, i.e., the parole revocation order he challenged. Boyd also did not allege in his petition that he could not obtain a copy of his commitment or cause of detention. {¶ 2} The court of appeals granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion of appellee, Boyd’s prison warden, and dismissed the petition. Boyd subsequently attached a copy of his 1993 parole revocation order to his motion for leave to amend his motion for relief from judgment. {¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ John A. Boyd, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Donald Gary Keyser, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Boyd did not comply with the R.C. 2725.04(D) requirement to attach his pertinent commitment papers. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 193, 194, 690 N.E.2d 7, 8; Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602, 603 (“These commitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the petition. Without them the petition is fatally defective.”). Boyd’s attachment of the purported cause of his commitment to his postjudgment motion did not cure the defect. See, e.g., Cornell v. Schotten (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 466, 466-467, 633 N.E.2d 1111, holding that warden’s attachment of a copy of the commitment order to motion to dismiss and petitioner’s memorandum in opposition to motion to dismiss did not cure R.C. 2725.04(D) defect. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Ohio 221, 82 Ohio St. 3d 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-money-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack