Robinson v. Miller (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 429
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Damon Robinson was sentenced in 1995 to 7–25 years for felonious assault; after parole he pleaded guilty in 2011 to resisting arrest and received a three-year suspended sentence and community control with a CBCF requirement.
- Robinson alleges his parole officer told him completion of the CBCF program would terminate the 1995 case; he says he completed it in February 2013 and was told he was "done" with the 1995 case.
- In 2013 Robinson was returned to custody to serve the three-year 2011 sentence after stipulating to a community-control violation; in February 2015 the Parole Board found a parole violation on the 1995 sentence and imposed three more years without a revocation hearing.
- Robinson filed a habeas corpus petition in the Seventh District asserting the Board lacked authority to extend his incarceration because he had received a final release from the 1995 conviction.
- The court of appeals dismissed the petition for procedural defects: failure to attach all commitment papers (R.C. 2725.04(D)). The Supreme Court affirmed on different procedural grounds—failure to include a certified six-month inmate-account statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas petition may proceed despite missing certified six‑month inmate account statement | Robinson argued he filed an indigency affidavit and that any missing attachments (commitment papers) were lost by the clerk; he sought leave to supplement | State argued statutory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) were mandatory and failure to provide the certified inmate-account statement requires dismissal | Court held dismissal was required for failure to file the certified six‑month inmate account statement; affirmed appellate dismissal |
| Whether failure to attach commitment papers (R.C. 2725.04(D)) barred the petition | Robinson contended he had attached commitment papers or that clerk lost them and sought to supplement | Respondent relied on case law that failure to attach commitment papers renders petition fatally defective | Court did not reach merits because it affirmed on R.C. 2969.25(C) ground; court of appeals had dismissed for missing commitment papers |
| Whether petitioner may cure statutory filing defects after initial filing | Robinson sought leave to supplement and argued procedural defects should be curable to reach liberty claim | State relied on precedent that R.C. 2969.25 requirements are mandatory and cannot be cured by later filings | Majority held statutory filing requirement is mandatory and failure to comply mandates dismissal; denied supplementation as moot |
| Whether dismissal for these procedural defects implicates due process requiring notice/opportunity to cure | Robinson argued dismissal without opportunity to cure denies due process and risks forfeiting meritorious liberty claims | State relied on binding precedent holding dismissal for noncompliance is appropriate and that courts treat such dismissals as not necessarily with prejudice | Dissent urged remand to allow cure and emphasized due‑process concerns; majority affirmed dismissal without remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Fugett v. Turner, 14 N.E.3d 984 (Ohio 2014) (failure to attach all commitment papers renders habeas petition fatally defective)
- Hazel v. Knab, 955 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio 2011) (R.C. 2969.25 filing requirements are mandatory; noncompliance subjects inmate action to dismissal)
- State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 788 N.E.2d 634 (Ohio 2003) (statutory filing requirements for inmate actions are mandatory)
- Bloss v. Rogers, 602 N.E.2d 602 (Ohio 1992) (requirement to attach commitment papers ensures court has record to decide habeas matters)
- State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 17 N.E.3d 581 (Ohio 2014) (an inmate may not cure R.C. 2969.25 defects by later filings)