State ex rel. Waterhouse v. Summit Cty. Common Pleas Court

2023 Ohio 1878
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 7, 2023
Docket30565
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2023 Ohio 1878 (State ex rel. Waterhouse v. Summit Cty. Common Pleas Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Waterhouse v. Summit Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2023 Ohio 1878 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Waterhouse v. Summit Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2023-Ohio-1878.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE EX REL. RICHARD L. WATERHOUSE

Petitioner C.A. No. 30565

v.

SUMMIT COUNTY COMMON PLEAS ORIGINAL ACTION IN COURT HABEAS CORPUS

Respondent

Dated: June 7, 2023

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Richard Waterhouse petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his

release from custody. Respondent moved to dismiss. Because Mr. Waterhouse has been released

from custody, the claim is moot and this Court dismisses the petition.

{¶2} When Mr. Waterhouse filed this action, he was incarcerated in the Summit County

Jail. After this action, and the motion to dismiss, were filed, Mr. Waterhouse resolved his criminal

cases. This Court may consider evidence outside the petition to determine that an action is moot.

State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo, 89 Ohio St.3d 227, 228 (2000).

{¶3} According to the docket for his criminal cases, he entered pleas, was sentenced, and

was released from custody. When a petitioner has been released from incarceration, the prisoner’s

habeas corpus claim is moot. State ex rel. Johnson v. Foley, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3634,

¶ 4. C.A. No. 30565 Page 2 of 2

{¶4} Because Mr. Waterhouse has been released from custody, his petition is moot. This

case is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr. Waterhouse.

{¶5} 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.

JENNIFER L. HENSAL FOR THE COURT

CARR, J. STEVENSON, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

RICHARD L. WATERHOUSE, Pro Se, Petitioner.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.

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

Related

State ex rel. Moore v. Gillece-Black
2025 Ohio 5699 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 Ohio 1878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-waterhouse-v-summit-cty-common-pleas-court-ohioctapp-2023.