{¶ 1} This is аn appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the petition fails to state a viable habeas corpus claim, we affirm.
Convictions and Sentence
{¶ 2} Following a jury trial, appellant, Frank Goudlock, was convicted of two counts each of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, аnd kidnapping. In 1977, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas sentenced Goudlock to two consecutive life terms, to be served consecutively to four сoncurrent terms of five to 25 years. He had been bound over for trial as an adult by the juvenile court. At the bindover hearing, the prosecuting attorney reprеsented to the juvenile court that “a full investigation including the mental and physical examination has been made by a duly qualified person.”
First Habeas Corpus Case
{¶ 3} In 2005, Goudlock filed a рetition in the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Goudlock contendеd that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sen
Second Habeas Corpus Case
{¶ 4} Almost three years later, Goudlock filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from prison. Goudlock again claimed that his bindover was improper. More specifically, he asserted that he had not been given the requisite mental and physical examinations before he was bound over for trial as an adult. Goudlock did not attach a copy of the bindover entry that he challengеd, nor did he indicate in his petition that he could not procure it without impairing the efficiency of the remedy. When the petition was filed, Goudlock was an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Institution in Lucas-ville, Scioto County, Ohio. Although he captioned his petition as being in the Court of Appeals for Sciоto County, he filed it in the Court of Appeals for Ross County.
{¶ 5} Appellee, Southern Ohio Correctional Institution Warden Edwin C. Voorhies Jr., filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Goudlock’s рetition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The warden raised several grounds, including that Goudlock had not attached a copy of the juvenile court’s bindover entry. In his response, Goudlock included an affidavit in which he asserted that despite his best efforts, “personally, through my mother and others, I have been unable to obtain the documents relating to the juvenile court’s ‘bindover.’ ”
{¶ 6} The court of appeals granted the warden’s mоtion and dismissed the petition.
Appeal: Standard of Review
{¶ 7} In his appeal as of right, Goudlock asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his petition. Dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is appropriate if, after all factual allegations are presumed true and all reasonаble inferences are made in Goudlock’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that he could prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested extrаordinary relief in habeas corpus. Keith v. Bobby,
{¶ 8} The court of appeals dismissed the petition because res judicata barred it, Goudlock had failed to сomply with the commitment-paper requirement, and he had filed the petition in the wrong county.
{¶ 9} The court of appeals held that res judicata barred Goudlock’s second habeas corpus petition. It is true that res judicata generally bars a successive habeas corpus petition. Everett v. Eberlin,
{¶ 10} But Goudloсk’s first habeas corpus petition was dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice constitutes an adjudication other than on the merits and prevents the dismissаl from having res judicata effect. See Chadwick v. Barba Lou, Inc. (1982),
{¶ 11} Therefore, the court of appeals erred in concluding that res judicata barred Goudlock’s second habeas corpus petition.
Reversal Is Not Appropriate, Because the Court of Appeals Properly Dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petitiоn
{¶ 12} Even though the court of appeals erred in holding that res judicata barred Glibert’s successive habeas corpus petition, “[Reviewing courts are nоt authorized to reverse a correct judgment on the basis that some or all of the lower court’s reasons are erroneous.” State ex rel. McGrath v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.,
{¶ 13} For the following reasons, the court of appeals properly dismissed Goudlock’s petition.
{¶ 14} First, Goudlock’s petition was fatally defective and subject to dismissal becаuse he failed to attach copies of all of his pertinent commitment papers. R.C. 2725.04(D); Tisdale v. Eberlin,
{¶ 15} Goudlock claims that he complied with R.C. 2725.04(D) because he could not obtain the bindover entry despite his best efforts. See R.C. 2725.04(D) (“A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such persоn shall be exhibited, if it can be procured without impairing the efficiency of the remedy”). Yet Goudlock did not include even a conclusory allegation in his рetition that he could not procure the bindover entry. See Chari v. Vore (2001),
{¶ 16} Second, in his pеtition, Goudlock admitted that at the bindover hearing, the prosecuting attorney informed the juvenile court that Goudlock had received the required mental and physical examinations. The juvenile court’s bindover entry presumably would have relied on this representation and thereby would have facially rebuttеd Goudlock’s claims that he had not received the requisite examinations. Under these circumstances, Goudlock had an adequate remedy in the ordinаry course of law by appeal to raise his claims because the sentencing court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction. Day,
{¶ 17} Finally, Goudlock erroneously filed his petition in a county in which he was not incarcerated. “If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state benevolent or correctional institution, the location of which is fixed by statute and at the time is in the custody of the officers of the institution, no court or judge other than the courts оr judges of the county in which the institution is located has jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas corpus for his production or discharge.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2725.03. See also Sevayega v. Bobby, Mahoning App. No. 03 MA 48,
Conclusion
{¶ 18} Based on the foregoing, Goudlock’s petition failed to state a viable habeas corpus claim. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.