Patton v. Moore

2025 Ohio 2435

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 1, 2025
• Docket: 24CA4 & 24CA5
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Patton v. Moore, 2025-Ohio-2435.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY

RONALD PATTON, : : Case No. 24CA4 & 24CA5 Petitioner-Appellant, : : : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT : ENTRY ROCHELLE MOORE, Warden, : : Respondent-Appellee. : RELEASED: 07/01/2025 :

APPEARANCES:

Ronald Patton, Pickaway Correctional Institute, Orient, Ohio, appellant, pro se.

Katherine E. Mullin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

Wilkin, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Ronald Patton (“Patton”), appeals two judgment entries

from the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas that dismissed his two

petitions seeking writs of habeas corpus. We sua sponte consolidated the cases

for this appeal.

{¶2} Patton asserts a single assignment of error claiming that he was

deprived of procedural due process because the trial court granted respondent,

Rochelle Moore’s, motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment before he

could respond. Because Patton’s petitions are facially invalid, the trial court’s

judgments did not violate his due process rights by dismissing the petitions

before Patton could file a response. Pickaway App. No. 24CA4 & 24CA5 2

{¶3} Therefore, we overrule Patton’s assignment of error and affirm the

trial court’s judgments of dismissal.

BACKGROUND

{¶4} The source of Patton’s history of incarceration was provided by the

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Bureau of Sentence

Computation, and largely coincides with Patton’s recounting of his incarceration.

In 1982 Patton was convicted of aggravated robbery in Montgomery County and

sentenced to 4 to 25 years in prison and he was incarcerated on January 20,

1982.

{¶5} Patton was granted parole on May 16, 1986. However, he was

returned to prison on December 5, 1986, following a conviction in Richland

County for escape and aggravated robbery. Patton was sentenced to six months

in prison with 101 days of jail time credit. Patton’s sentence was ordered to run

consecutively to his sentence in the aggravated robbery case from Montgomery

County.

{¶6} On February 21, 1989 Patton was paroled again. However, he was

declared a parole violator at large on June 1, 1989. Patton was sentenced to 6

months in prison and 8 days of lost time, and returned to prison on January 16,

1990.

{¶7} On October 4, 1994 Patton was paroled yet again and on December

20, 1995, he was declared a parole violator at large and given nine days of lost

time. Patton was returned to prison on January 30, 1996. Pickaway App. No. 24CA4 & 24CA5 3

{¶8} After returning to prison, Patton was charged with and convicted of

attempted murder in Stark County. The court sentenced Patton to 10 to 25

years, to be served consecutively to his sentence in the Montgomery County

aggravated assault case.

{¶9} Patton is currently incarcerated in the Pickaway Correctional

Institution for attempted murder and aggravated robbery convictions. According

to the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections as of January 2024, Patton

is serving a 14 to 50-year sentence with his next parole hearing scheduled for

March 1, 2027 and his “Max date” is June 16, 2032.

{¶10} On January 2, 2024, Patton filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas in Case No. 2024CI002

against the respondent. Patton claimed that he was entitled to be released

because he had served more than his maximum 25-year prison sentence

imposed on April 4, 1997 for his attempted murder conviction.

{¶11} On January 11, 2024, Patton filed a second petition for a writ of

habeas corpus in Pickaway County Common Pleas Court Case No. 2024CI10

against the respondent, wherein he raised identical arguments to those he raised

in Case No. 2024CI002.

{¶12} Respondent filed a motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment

in both cases. Prior to Patton filing a responsive pleading in either case, the

court dismissed both petitions in separate judgment entries. Pickaway App. No. 24CA4 & 24CA5 4

{¶13} Patton appealed both judgments of dismissal to this court. We sua

sponte ordered the cases to be consolidated for the appeal. It is these

judgments that Patton appeals.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN GRANTING RESPONDENT-APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS/MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PETITIONER-APPELLANT’S COMPLAINT IN HABEAS CORPUS

{¶14} In his sole assignment of error, Patton claims that he was deprived

of his right to due process when the trial court dismissed his petitions before he

could respond to the respondent’s motion for summary judgment/dismissal.

Patton claims procedural due process requires that a non-moving party subject to

a motion for summary judgment have an opportunity to respond before the

motion is adjudicated.

{¶15} Patton maintains that because the trial court considered material

outside the pleading this case should have been converted to a summary

judgment. He claims that procedural due process requires that a non-moving

party have an opportunity to respond before the motion for summary judgment is

decided. He asserts that the trial court dismissed both of his petitions well before

the time his responsive pleading was due.

{¶16} Because Patton did not receive notice of the trial court’s decision to

dismiss or to respond to the respondent’s motion to dismiss/motion for summary

judgment, this court should reverse the dismissal entries and permit him time to

respond. Pickaway App. No. 24CA4 & 24CA5 5

{¶17} In response, the respondent argues that the petitions were

dismissed because Patton failed to comply with statutory requirements for

habeas petitions. It is well established that a court can dismiss a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus sua sponte if it does not contain a facially valid claim.

{¶18} The respondent claims that in Case No. 2024CI002, Patton failed to

submit copies of his commitment papers or an affidavit seeking waiver of filing

fees. Both render his claim facially invalid and permit sua sponte dismissal of the

petition.

{¶19} The respondent further claims that in Case No. 2024CI10, Patton

failed to verify his petition and to submit his commitment papers. Again, both

failures permit sua sponte dismissal of the petition.

{¶20} Because Patton’s errors caused his claim to be facially invalid, the

court was permitted to sua sponte dismiss both petitions. Therefore, “it stands to

reason that the court did not deprive Patton of his due process rights when it

granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss.” Accordingly, the respondent argues

that Patton’s assignment of error should be overruled.

A. Law

Standard of Review

{¶21} “A court may dismiss a habeas action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted ‘if, after all factual

allegations are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in [the

petitioner's] favor, it appears beyond doubt that he could prove no set of facts

entitling him to the requested extraordinary relief in habeas corpus.’ ” Handcock Pickaway App. No. 24CA4 & 24CA5 6

v. Shoop, 2019-Ohio-718, ¶ 5, citing Keith v. Bobby, 2008-Ohio-1443, ¶ 10.

{¶22} Our review of the dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

is de novo. State ex rel. Steele v. Foley, 2021-Ohio-2073, ¶ 19, citing State ex

rel. Hunley v. Wainwright, 2021-Ohio-803, ¶ 19. “In other words, an appellate

court affords no deference to a trial court's decision and, instead, applies its own,

independent review to determine if the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) requirements were

satisfied.” Hammond v. Perry, 2013-Ohio-3683, ¶ 11 (4th Dist.).

Habeas Corpus

{¶23} R.C. Chapter 2725 addresses habeas corpus relief. R.C. 2725.01

provides that a writ of habeas corpus is available to persons who are “unlawfully

restrained of [their] liberty[.]” “Generally, a writ of habeas corpus is available only

when the petitioner's maximum sentence has expired and he is being held

unlawfully, or when the sentencing court patently and unambiguously lacked

subject-matter jurisdiction.” (Citations omitted) State ex rel. Missimer v. Forshey,

2023-Ohio-2355, ¶ 5.

{¶24} R.C. 2725.04 sets out the requirements when applying for a writ of

habeas corpus, including that the “[a]pplication . . . shall be by petition, signed

and verified . . . by the party for whose relief it is intended[.]” (Emphasis added.)

“To be properly verified, a declaration must be sworn in the presence of an

authorized officer, such as a notary public.” State ex rel. Foster v. Foley, 2022-

Ohio-3168, ¶ 12, citing Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327 (2001). An

unverified petition is subject to dismissal. Id. Pickaway App. No. 24CA4 & 24CA5 7

{¶25} R.C. 2725.04(D) requires that “a petitioner must attach all pertinent

papers regarding his commitment, including sentencing entries and parole-

revocation decisions.” (Emphasis added.) State ex rel. Davis v. Sheldon, 2022-

Ohio-2789, ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr, 2018-Ohio-4184, ¶ 6. “A

petition that fails to comply with this requirement is defective and must be

dismissed.” Id., citing Farley v. Wainwright, 2021-Ohio-670, ¶ 6. Failing to attach

the commitment papers to the petition cannot be cured by filing them at some

later point in the habeas proceedings. Boyd v. Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388, 389

(1998).

{¶26} R.C. Chapter 2725 “prescribes a basic, summary procedure for

instituting habeas corpus actions, [it] does not require service of the petition

before dismissal if the petition does not contain a facially valid claim.” State ex

rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 1998-Ohio-239, 82 Ohio St. 3d 270, 271

(1998), citing State ex rel. Carrion v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 80 Ohio St.3d 637,

638 (1998). See also Hazel v. Knab, 2011-Ohio-4608, ¶ 3. Therefore, “[i]f a

petition is not facially valid making sua sponte dismissal appropriate, there is “no

prejudice in not considering [a petitioner’s] response to the motion to dismiss.”

Id.

{¶27} Finally, although not specific to habeas corpus actions, R.C.

2969.25 imposes certain requirements on inmates filing an action or an appeal

against a government entity. Applicable in the instant case, “R.C. 2969.25(C)

provides that if an inmate who is filing a civil action against a governmental

employee seeks a waiver of the filing fee, then the inmate must file an affidavit Pickaway App. No. 24CA4 & 24CA5 8

stating that he or she is seeking a waiver of the fee and an affidavit of indigency.

The affidavits must contain a statement of the balance in the inmate's account.”

(Emphasis original) Dunkle v. Hill, 2021-Ohio-3835, ¶ 581. “Failure to comply

with R.C. 2969.25 is a ground for dismissal.” Id., citing State ex rel. Zanders v.

Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 422 (1998).

Analysis

{¶28} Initially, we address our standard of review. We understand that the

respondent filed a motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment. However,

the trial court did not grant or deny summary judgment to respondent. Rather, it

dismissed the petitions. Therefore, we find that the trial court acted under Civ.R.

12(B)(6), not Civ.R. 56, in dismissing the petitions. Review of a decision granting

or denying a dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is de novo.

{¶29} We begin our analysis by examining Patton’s petitions and the

attachments thereto because materials incorporated in a complaint may be

considered part of the complaint for purposes of determining a Civ.R. 12(B)(6)

motion to dismiss. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.,

72 Ohio St.3d 106, 109 (1995).

{¶30} In both cases (2024CI002 and 2024CI10), Patton submitted some,

but not all of his commitment papers. Specifically, he failed to attach documents

pertaining to any of his parole revocations. Failing to submit all his commitment

papers renders his petition facially invalid and warrants dismissal of the petition. Pickaway App. No. 24CA4 & 24CA5 9

{¶31} Patton also failed to file the affidavits in both cases seeking waiver

of the filing fees and asserting indigency.1 That failure also renders his petition

facially invalid and merits dismissal of both cases.

{¶32} Finally, in Case No. 2024CI10, Patton failed to verify his petition,

which renders it invalid and merits its dismissal.

{¶33} These failures caused Patton’s petitions for habeas corpus to be

facially invalid. Because Patton’s petitions were facially invalid, the trial court’s

decision to dismiss them before he could respond did not violate his procedural

due process. Accordingly, we overrule Patton’s assignment of error and affirm

the trial court’s judgment entries of dismissal in both cases.

CONCLUSION

{¶34} Having overruled Patton’s single assignment, we affirm the trial

court’s judgment entries of dismissal.

JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.

1 In his petitions, Patton asserts that he attempted to pay the filing fees. The record shows that some of the fees in Case No. 2024CI10 were paid, but there is a balance of $46. In case 2024CI02 the record shows that none of the filing fees have been paid. Pickaway App. No. 24CA4 & 24CA5 10

JUDGMENT ENTRY

It is ordered that the JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED and the appellant shall pay the costs.

The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Pickaway County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.

Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of this entry.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Smith, P.J. and Abele, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.

For the Court,

BY: ____________________________ Kristy S. Wilkin, Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.