State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr (Slip Opinion)

2018 Ohio 4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, 155 Ohio St. 3d 213
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 17, 2018
Docket2017-1640
StatusPublished
Cited by78 cases

This text of 2018 Ohio 4184 (State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr (Slip Opinion)) 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
State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, 155 Ohio St. 3d 213 (Ohio 2018).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

*213 {¶ 1} Appellant, Larry Cannon, appeals the Third District Court of Appeals' dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

I. Background

{¶ 2} On June 30, 2009, Cannon pleaded guilty in Summit County Common Pleas Court to multiple theft offenses and was sentenced to consecutive definite terms totaling 4½ years. State v. Cannon , Summit C.P. No. CR-2009-04-1330A. And on June 16, 2010, he pleaded guilty to four charges in two separate cases in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court and received a total aggregate sentence of 2 years, to be served concurrently with the sentence in the Summit County case. State v. Cannon , Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-535418; State v. Cannon , Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-535419.

{¶ 3} On August 17, 2017, Cannon filed in the Third District Court of Appeals a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against appellees, Gary Mohr, director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Andre Imbrogno, chair of the Ohio Parole Board, and Lyneal Wainwright, warden of the Marion Correctional Institution.

*778 Cannon alleged that because as of July 28, 2014, he had served the 4½-year sentence for the Summit County convictions and the concurrent 2-year sentence for the Cuyahoga County convictions, he was entitled to immediate release.

*214 {¶ 4} Appellees filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. They argued that the petition was procedurally defective and that Cannon was not entitled to immediate release, because he was incarcerated for convictions in addition to those mentioned above and his maximum sentence for those additional convictions will not expire until July 12, 2032.

{¶ 5} The court of appeals dismissed Cannon's petition for a host of procedural and substantive reasons. Most significantly, the court faulted Cannon for his failure to attach all his commitment papers, in violation of R.C. 2725.04(D). In addition, the court held that the record did not support Cannon's claim for immediate release:

The petition and attachments clearly reflect that Petitioner is detained under multiple indefinite sentences that do not expire until July 12, 2032. Petitioner's calculation fails to account for parole revocations and additional sentences, imposed by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, that are required to be served consecutive to the sentence imposed by Summit County.

Cannon appealed.

II. Analysis

A. The petition failed to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D)

{¶ 6} A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must include "[a] copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person." R.C. 2725.04(D). To comply with this rule, an inmate must attach all pertinent papers that caused his commitment, including sentencing entries and parole-revocation decisions. See State ex rel. Finfrock v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. , 80 Ohio St.3d 639 , 640, 687 N.E.2d 761 (1998). Failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D) is fatal to a habeas corpus petition. Cook v. State , 150 Ohio St.3d 96 , 2016-Ohio-3415 , 79 N.E.3d 516 , ¶ 7.

{¶ 7} Cannon attached to his petition the sentencing entries in Summit County Common Pleas Court case No. CR-2009-04-1330A and Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court case Nos. CR-535418 and CR-535419. But he also attached documents that demonstrated that the petition was missing relevant commitment papers; the documents indicated that Cannon still had prison time to serve for other convictions for which he did not provide documentation.

Tabular or graphic material set at this point is not displayable.

{¶ 8} For example, Cannon attached records showing that in early 1975, he was sentenced to a term of 1 to 15 years in prison after pleading guilty to one count of robbery, State v. Cannon , Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-10486, and later that year, he *215 was sentenced to a term of 2 to 15 years for another robbery offense. State v. Cannon , Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-16618. Thus, as of 1975, Cannon had a maximum sentence of at least 30 years.

{¶ 9} Cannon admits that after serving "part" of those sentences, he was granted parole and that "[d]uring his term of parole supervision, he violated parole numerous times and was returned to prison." His petition demonstrates that in 1983, he received concurrent sentences of 2 to 5 years after being convicted of receiving stolen property and breaking and entering.

*779 State v. Cannon , Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-178753B; State v. Cannon , Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-178828A. And in 1985, he pleaded guilty to one count of escape, with specifications, and was sentenced to a term of 1½ to 5 years. State v. Cannon , Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-197575.

{¶ 10} To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, a party must show that he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty, R.C. 2725.01, and that he is entitled to immediate release from prison or confinement, Leyman v. Bradshaw , 146 Ohio St.3d 522 , 2016-Ohio-1093 , 59 N.E.3d 1236 , ¶ 8. To state a claim for habeas relief and satisfy the Revised Code filing requirements, Cannon needed to submit complete records of his incarcerations and releases. Absent those records, it is impossible to determine how much prison time he actually served and therefore impossible to conclude that he completed his sentences and is entitled to immediate release.

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

Related

Goodykoontz v. Harris
2025 Ohio 4511 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Krug v. Stuff
2025 Ohio 3039 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Johnson v. Reynolds
2025 Ohio 2929 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Patton v. Moore
2025 Ohio 2435 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Holloway v. Mackey
2025 Ohio 1118 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
McDonald v. Stuff
2025 Ohio 448 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Montanez v. May
2025 Ohio 229 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Jackson v. Smith
2024 Ohio 4742 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2024)
In re E.W. v. Natl. Youth Advocate Program
2024 Ohio 3101 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State ex rel. Dodson v. Gray
2024 Ohio 2766 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Midlam v. Demartino
2024 Ohio 2301 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Fredrick
2024 Ohio 1861 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2024)
Chester v. Black
2024 Ohio 1558 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Calo v. Black
2024 Ohio 329 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Appenzeller v. Black
2024 Ohio 240 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State ex rel. Rohrig v. Turner
2023 Ohio 4279 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State ex rel. Woodley v. State
2023 Ohio 4073 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
Driggins v. Bracy
2023 Ohio 4018 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2023)
State ex rel. Rohrig v. Columbus
2023 Ohio 1983 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State ex rel. Haddix v. Warden
2023 Ohio 1637 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 Ohio 4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, 155 Ohio St. 3d 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-cannon-v-mohr-slip-opinion-ohio-2018.