Dunkle v. Hill (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 3835

In 1986 Dunkle was convicted in Licking County of multiple offenses, including four counts of complicity to commit rape, and received four consecutive life terms.
Dunkle did not timely appeal; he twice sought delayed appeals and filed untimely postconviction/petition attempts, all unsuccessful.
On October 2, 2020 Dunkle filed a habeas corpus complaint in the Third District against the Marion Correctional Institution warden, alleging he was not informed of his right to appeal.
The court of appeals dismissed the habeas complaint for failure to comply with statutory filing requirements (including absence of a certified inmate-account statement) and related procedural defects.
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, finding Dunkle failed to (1) verify the habeas complaint as required by statute, (2) submit the R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit listing civil actions filed in the prior five years, and (3) include the required affidavit/statement regarding his inmate account or otherwise pay the filing fee.
The court noted Dunkle’s R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit was inaccurate because he had filed a prior habeas appeal to this court within the five-year window.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Requirement to provide inmate-account statement / fee compliance (R.C. 2969.25(C))	Dunkle indicated fee affidavits were included and sought relief without a certified account statement	Warden: No certified account statement was filed; complaint should be dismissed for failing statutory fee/affidavit requirements or nonpayment	Court affirmed dismissal for failure to comply with fee/affidavit requirements (or to pay fee)
Verification of habeas complaint (R.C. 2725.04)	Dunkle proceeded without a verified complaint	Warden: Complaint was unverified; failure to verify is fatal	Court held lack of verification is a ground for dismissal and may be considered by this court
Duty to list prior civil actions (R.C. 2969.25(A))	Dunkle’s affidavit stated he had no civil actions/appeals in prior five years	Warden: Dunkle had filed a habeas appeal to this court within five years, so affidavit was inaccurate/deficient	Court held R.C. 2969.25(A) required a list and dismissal was appropriate for noncompliance
Whether this court may consider dismissal grounds not cited below	Dunkle argued dismissal was improper on the record before the court of appeals	Warden urged affirmance on the statutory procedural grounds	Court exercised plenary authority to consider defects (e.g., verification) and affirmed dismissal

State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421 (1998) (failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 is ground for dismissal)
Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211 (2003) (R.C. 2969.25 affidavit/indigency requirements apply to habeas actions in courts of appeals)
State ex rel. Ranzy v. Coyle, 81 Ohio St.3d 109 (1998) (failure to verify a habeas complaint is a ground for dismissal)
Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323 (2001) (this court has plenary authority to consider habeas petitions as if originally filed here)
State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 155 Ohio St.3d 216 (2018) (R.C. 2969.25 requirements apply to civil actions or appeals against governmental entities or employees filed in courts of appeals)
State ex rel. Dixon v. Bowerman, 156 Ohio St.3d 317 (2019) (R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit requirement applies to habeas in court of appeals)
State ex rel. Ware v. Pureval, 160 Ohio St.3d 387 (2020) (dismissal is proper for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A))