Thomas v. Tibbals
This text of 2011 Ohio 6087 (Thomas v. Tibbals) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as Thomas v. Tibbals, 2011-Ohio-6087.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97519
GARY THOMAS RELATOR
vs.
WARDEN TERRY TIBBALS RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT: PETITION DISMISSED
Writ of Habeas Corpus Order No. 449455
RELEASE DATE: November 21, 2011 2
FOR RELATOR
Gary Thomas, pro se Inmate #A601-988 Mansfield Correctional Institution 1150 N. Main Street Mansfield, Ohio 44901
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT WARDEN TERRY TIBBALS
Mike DeWine Ohio Attorney General
By: Gregory T. Hartke Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Section – Habeas Unit State Office Building, 11th Floor 615 West Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1899
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.:
{¶ 1} Gary Thomas has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking
immediate release from prison. Sua sponte, we dismiss the petition for lack of territorial
jurisdiction because Thomas is incarcerated at the Mansfield Correctional Institution
located in Mansfield, Ohio. 3
{¶ 2} One of the basic requirements for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is
that, regardless of where the petitioner was convicted, the petition can only be brought
and proceed in the county where he is actually incarcerated. Bridges v. McMackin
(1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 135, 541 N.E.2d 1035. This court does not possess the authority
to order the release of a person from prison unless the prison lies within our territorial
jurisdiction, which is Cuyahoga County. State ex rel. Durham v. Wilson, Cuyahoga
App. No. 85928, 2005-Ohio-757; State ex rel. Lewis v. Morgan (June 17, 1999),
Cuyahoga App. No. 76314; State ex rel. Mays v. McFaul (Mar. 18, 1999), Cuyahoga App.
No. 75833. Since Thomas is not incarcerated in Cuyahoga County, we lack jurisdiction
to address the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
{¶ 3} Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Costs to Thomas. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of
Appeals serve notice upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
Petition dismissed.
__________________________________________ COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2011 Ohio 6087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-tibbals-ohioctapp-2011.