Hughley v. Saunders

Aug 20, 2009
2009-0530
Versions:2009 Ohio 4089
123 Ohio St. 3d 90
914 N.E.2d 370

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of appellant, Kevin Hughley. Hughley‘s petition was fatally defective and subject to dismissal because he failed to comply with the commitment-paper and verification requirements of R.C. 2725.04. Griffin v. McFaul, 116 Ohio St.3d 30, 2007-Ohio-5506, 876 N.E.2d 527, ¶ 4. Hughley‘s petition failed to include specific facts to support his statement that his commitment papers and verification could not be obtained without impairing the efficiency of the remedy. Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 15. Even if—as Hughley claims—the prison‘s record office would not give him a copy of his commitment papers, there is no allegation in his petition that he sought those papers from the clerk‘s office of his sentencing court. And although Hughley‘s petition contains an “affidavit on claims” that is notarized, there is no statement in which he expressly swears to the truth of the allegations in his petition. Chari v. Vore (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 744 N.E.2d 763.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.