Spears v. Deweese

102 Ohio St. 3d 202
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMay 26, 2004
DocketNo. 2003-2232
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 102 Ohio St. 3d 202 (Spears v. Deweese) 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
Spears v. Deweese, 102 Ohio St. 3d 202 (Ohio 2004).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} On November 5, 2002, appellee Judge James DeWeese of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas sentenced appellant, Gregory Spears, to five years in prison for rape.

{¶ 2} On December 5, 2003, Spears filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Richland County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Spears named appellees, Judge DeWeese and Richland Correctional Institution Warden Julius Wilson, as respondents. Spears claimed that he was entitled to the writ because Judge DeWeese failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2701.061 and consequently lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him.

Gregory Spears, pro se.

{¶ 3} On December 22, 2003, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the petition.

{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. First, a trial court judge’s failure to comply with R.C. 2701.06 is not cognizable in habeas corpus; the proper respondent is the individual who is directly responsible for keeping the petitioner in custody, i.e., Warden Wilson. See, e.g., Davis v. Wilson, 100 Ohio St.3d 269, 2003-Ohio-5898, 798 N.E.2d 379, ¶ 11; cf. Potts v. Rose, 100 Ohio St.3d 119, 2003-Ohio-5102, 796 N.E.2d 935.

{¶ 5} Moreover, any noncompliance by Judge DeWeese with R.C. 2701.06 did not invalidate Spears’s criminal proceedings. See Potts v. DeWeese (Jan. 23, 2002), Richland App. No. 01CA66, 2002 WL 106320, appeal not accepted, 95 Ohio St.3d 1438, 2002-Ohio-2084, 766 N.E.2d 1003; cf. State ex rel. Ragozine v. Shaker, 96 Ohio St.3d 201, 2002-Ohio-3992, 772 N.E.2d 1192, ¶ 13, quoting State ex rel. Jones v. Farrar (1946), 146 Ohio St. 467, 32 O.O. 542, 66 N.E.2d 531, paragraph three of the syllabus (“ ‘As a general rule, a statute providing a time for the performance of an official duty will be construed as directory so far as time for performance is concerned, especially where the statute fixes the time simply for convenience or orderly procedure’ ”).

{¶ 6} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not err by dismissing Spears’s habeas corpus petition. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. James J. Mayer Jr., Richland County Prosecuting Attorney, and John Randolph Spon Jr., Chief Appellate Counsel, for appellee Judge DeWeese. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Mark J. Zemba, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Wilson.

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

Related

State ex rel. Banks v. Doe
2022 Ohio 2084 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
Russell v. State
2016 Ohio 840 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State v. Sides, Unpublished Decision (6-2-2006)
2006 Ohio 2778 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
State Ex Rel. Waver v. Gallagher, Unpublished Decision (8-18-2004)
2004 Ohio 4355 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 Ohio St. 3d 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spears-v-deweese-ohio-2004.