Holloman v. Mohr

Ohio Supreme Court

Holloman v. Mohr

43 N.E.3d 402, 144 Ohio St. 3d 340

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 15, 2015

DocketNo. 2014-1569

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 N.E.3d 402 (Holloman v. Mohr) 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

Holloman v. Mohr, 43 N.E.3d 402, 144 Ohio St. 3d 340 (Ohio 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the Fourth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by appellant, Martin L. Holloman, because Holloman is no longer incarcerated.

{¶ 2} On November 4, 2005, Holloman was convicted of one charge of first-degree-felony aggravated burglary, and on December 5, 2005, the trial court sentenced him to a six-year prison term. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Holloman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-01, 2007-Ohio-840, 2007 WL 612320, ¶ 1.

{¶ 3} Holloman was released and placed on postrelease control in April 2011. In April 2014, he was found guilty of violating the conditions of his release and sentenced to a 150-day prison term.

Martin L. Holloman, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 4} Holloman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on July 1, 2014, in the Fourth District Court of Appeals. The warden filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment on July 31, 2014, but on the same day, the court of appeals dismissed the petition sua sponte for failure to comply with the requirement of R.C. 2725.04(D) that he file a copy of his commitment papers with his petition. Holloman appealed to this court on September 9, 2014. He was subsequently released from prison under supervision on September 20, 2014.

{¶ 5} “ ‘ “If a habeas corpus petitioner seeking release is subsequently released, the petitioner’s habeas corpus claim is normally rendered moot.” ’ ” State ex rel. Hawkins v. Haas, 141 Ohio St.3d 98, 2014-Ohio-5196, 21 N.E.3d 1060, ¶ 4, quoting Crase v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-663, 842 N.E.2d 513, ¶ 5, quoting Larsen v. State, 92 Ohio St.3d 69, 69-70, 748 N.E.2d 72 (2001).

{¶ 6} Because Holloman is no longer incarcerated, his petition is moot, and we therefore affirm the dismissal by the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the Fourth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by appellant, Martin L. Holloman, because Holloman is no longer incarcerated.

{¶ 2} On November 4, 2005, Holloman was convicted of one charge of first-degree-felony aggravated burglary, and on December 5, 2005, the trial court sentenced him to a six-year prison term. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Holloman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-01, 2007-Ohio-840, 2007 WL 612320, ¶ 1.

{¶ 3} Holloman was released and placed on postrelease control in April 2011. In April 2014, he was found guilty of violating the conditions of his release and sentenced to a 150-day prison term.

Martin L. Holloman, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 4} Holloman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on July 1, 2014, in the Fourth District Court of Appeals. The warden filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment on July 31, 2014, but on the same day, the court of appeals dismissed the petition sua sponte for failure to comply with the requirement of R.C. 2725.04(D) that he file a copy of his commitment papers with his petition. Holloman appealed to this court on September 9, 2014. He was subsequently released from prison under supervision on September 20, 2014.

{¶ 5} “ ‘ “If a habeas corpus petitioner seeking release is subsequently released, the petitioner’s habeas corpus claim is normally rendered moot.” ’ ” State ex rel. Hawkins v. Haas, 141 Ohio St.3d 98, 2014-Ohio-5196, 21 N.E.3d 1060, ¶ 4, quoting Crase v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-663, 842 N.E.2d 513, ¶ 5, quoting Larsen v. State, 92 Ohio St.3d 69, 69-70, 748 N.E.2d 72 (2001).

{¶ 6} Because Holloman is no longer incarcerated, his petition is moot, and we therefore affirm the dismissal by the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 N.E.3d 402, 144 Ohio St. 3d 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloman-v-mohr-ohio-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack