State ex rel. Dixon v. Bowerman (Slip Opinion)
126 N.E.3d 1086
| Ohio | 2019Background
- Petitioner William Dixon, a state prisoner serving a 21-year aggregate term from 2006 convictions, filed a habeas corpus petition in the Sixth District Court of Appeals on March 6, 2018, asserting eight claims about his trial, charging instrument, trial counsel, and the prosecutor.
- Dixon attached an affidavit of verity and several exhibits to the petition but did not file the statutory affidavit listing prior civil actions required by R.C. 2969.25(A).
- The court of appeals dismissed the petition on March 13, 2018, in part because Dixon failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A); reconsideration was denied on April 9, 2018.
- Dixon argued on appeal that he had effectively complied by discussing prior civil actions in the petition body and by attaching a general affidavit averring the truth of the petition’s contents.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal and also considered several motions Dixon filed on appeal (for counsel, a private investigator, and to add material to the record).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dixon complied with R.C. 2969.25(A)’s requirement to file an affidavit listing prior civil actions | Dixon: references to prior suits in the petition and a general affidavit of verity satisfy the statute | Bowerman: Dixon failed to submit the specific statutory affidavit detailing prior federal/state civil actions | Court: Dixon did not meet R.C. 2969.25(A)’s specific requirements; dismissal was proper |
| Whether references in the petition substitute for the required affidavit | Dixon: substantive references and appended exhibits show prior actions, so separate affidavit unnecessary | Bowerman: statute requires a distinct affidavit with specified contents; references are insufficient | Court: References in the petition failed to satisfy the statute’s required elements |
| Whether Dixon is entitled to appointed counsel or a private investigator on habeas appeal | Dixon: requested counsel and investigator to assist with proceedings | Bowerman: no statutory right to appointed counsel in civil habeas appeals; no basis for investigator | Court: Motions denied as moot; no right to counsel in civil proceedings and no authority for investigator request |
| Whether Dixon could add new material to the appellate record after filing his merit brief | Dixon: sought to file additional appendix materials two weeks after brief | Bowerman: appellate record composition governed by rules; late additions improper | Court: Motion denied; improper attempt to expand the appellate record |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 788 N.E.2d 634 (Ohio 2003) (noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is a sufficient basis for dismissal)
- State ex rel. McQueen v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div., 135 Ohio St.3d 291, 986 N.E.2d 925 (Ohio 2013) (no right to appointed counsel in civil proceedings absent statute)