Pence v. Bunting, 143 Ohio St. 3d 532

Todd A. Pence is serving multiple felony sentences, including two consecutive 8-year sentences for aggravated vehicular homicide (case No. 02 CR 121) imposed in 2003; those two sentences expire Oct. 25, 2018.
Pence was on parole from an earlier indefinite robbery sentence (case No. 94 CR 265) with a maximum that expires Mar. 7, 2026; the robbery sentence is consecutive to the vehicular-homicide sentences.
On Apr. 29, 2014, Pence filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the Third District attaching only the conviction and sentencing entry for 02 CR 121 and omitting commitment papers for 94 CR 265.
Respondent Warden Bunting moved to dismiss, arguing procedural defect and non-cognizability of the claim in habeas; the Third District granted dismissal.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the petition defective for failing to attach all commitment papers and noting Pence’s maximum sentence had not yet expired, limiting habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas petition must include all commitment papers	Pence: robbery papers irrelevant to current detention for vehicular homicide	Bunting: all commitment papers are required to assess custody	Court: must attach all commitment papers; omission is fatal
Whether habeas available before maximum sentence expires	Pence: claims jurisdictional error justifying immediate habeas	Bunting: habeas normally unavailable until maximum sentence served	Court: habeas generally not available until maximum expires; Pence’s max not expired
Whether alleged jurisdictional error is cognizable in habeas	Pence: extraordinary circumstances (cites Pirman) warrant relief	Bunting: no adequate showing of extraordinary circumstances	Court: Pence failed to identify or argue extraordinary circumstances; claim rejected
Whether sentencing court lacked jurisdiction such that release is warranted	Pence: contends lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under facts	Bunting: court had jurisdiction to try and sentence; procedural defects bar relief	Court: jurisdictional challenge not supported; dismissal affirmed

State ex rel. McCuller v. Callahan, 98 Ohio St.3d 307 (2003) (failure to attach commitment papers is fatal to habeas petition)
State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 95 Ohio St.3d 70 (2002) (attachment requirement and procedural sufficiency in habeas)
Malone v. Lane, 96 Ohio St.3d 415 (2002) (procedural defects in habeas petitions are jurisdictional bars)
Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323 (2001) (attachment of commitment papers required for habeas)
Haynes v. Voorhies, 110 Ohio St.3d 243 (2006) (multiple convictions do not entitle prisoner to habeas release based on challenge to one conviction)
Marshall v. Lazaroff, 77 Ohio St.3d 443 (1997) (limitations on habeas relief for nonjurisdictional errors)
Swiger v. Seidner, 74 Ohio St.3d 685 (1996) (court will not grant habeas release when petitioner incarcerated for several crimes)
Morgan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 68 Ohio St.3d 344 (1994) (habeas ordinarily unavailable until maximum sentence has expired)
Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378 (2013) (habeas lies to challenge jurisdiction; narrow exceptions for nonjurisdictional errors)
State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185 (1995) (limitations on habeas relief and availability of alternative remedies)
State ex rel. Pirman v. Money, 69 Ohio St.3d 591 (1994) (extraordinary circumstances may allow habeas for nonjurisdictional errors)