Jackson v. May

2019 Ohio 3896

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 25, 2019
• Docket: 19CA49
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Jackson v. May, 2019-Ohio-3896.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MAURICE JACKSON : JUDGES: : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Petitioner : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- : : HAROLD MAY : Case No. 19CA49 : Respondent : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 25, 2019

APPEARANCES:

For Petitioner For Respondent

MAURICE JACKSON DAVE YOST Inmate #396-218 Ohio Attorney General Richland Correctional Institution JERRI L. FOSNAUGHT P.O. Box 8107 Assistant Attorney General Mansfield, OH 44901 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Richland County, Case No. 19CA49 2

Wise, Earle, J.

{¶ 1} On June 3, 2019, Maurice Jackson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

contending his prison sentence terminated on April 12, 2017, and he is therefore being

wrongfully held under an expired prison term. Along with the filing of his petition, Mr.

Jackson requested waiver of prepayment of the full filing fees. However, in doing so, Mr.

Jackson failed to comply with the mandates of R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires an inmate

who seeks waiver of prepayment of the court’s filing fees to include in his or her affidavit

of indigency a statement setting forth the balance in their inmate account for each of the

preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier. “The requirements of R.C.

2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to

dismissal.” State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d

634, ¶5; State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-Ohio-4726, 935

N.E.2d 830, ¶1.

{¶ 2} Mr. Jackson subsequently filed a “Motion to Supplement the Record on

Appeal,” seeking to supplement his writ with the required documentation. In Boles v.

Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2858, 951 N.E.2d 389, the Ohio Supreme Court

explained that delayed statements setting forth the account balance for a six-month

period are not permitted by R.C. 2969.25(C). The Court affirmed the court of appeals’

dismissal of petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus on this basis. Id. at ¶1.

{¶ 3} Under Boles, we deny Mr. Jackson’s request to supplement the record.

Further, because Mr. Jackson failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.

2969.25(C) his writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. Richland County, Case No. 19CA49 3

{¶ 4} The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default

notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).

By Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Wise, John, J. concur.

EEW/ac