History
  • No items yet
midpage
In re Olmstead
2017 Ohio 8291
Ohio Ct. App.
2017
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 [Cite as In re Olmstead , 2017-Ohio-8291.]

COURT OF APPEALS

ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN RE: BRANDON OLMSTEAD JUDGES:

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

Case No. 17-COA-036 O P I N I O N CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 23, 2017 APPEARANCES:

For Petitioner For Respondent

ANDREW S. WICK NO APPEARANCE 23 East High Street

Mount Gilead, Ohio 43338

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Petitioner, Brandon Olmstead, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming Petitioner being held without bail is unreasonable.

{¶2} The caption of the petition is “In re: Brandon Olmstead.” Petitioner has not named a respondent in the petition. A writ of habeas corpus will only lie against the individual who is directly responsible for keeping the petitioner in custody. See also Jackson v. State, 8 th Dist. Cuyahoga App. No. 81007, 2002 WL 737495, (April 19, 2002) (dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus appropriate when petitioner named the state rather than the sheriff—his custodian as the respondent).

{¶3} Further, Petitioner has failed to attach any commitment papers as required. Revised Code 2725.04(D) provides, “(D) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person shall be exhibited, if it can be procured without impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or detention is without legal authority, such fact must appear.” A “[h]abeas corpus petitioner's failure to attach pertinent commitment

papers to his petition rendered petition fatally defective, and petitioner's subsequent attachment of commitment papers to his post-judgment motion did not cure the defect.” Boyd v. Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388, 1998 -Ohio- 221, 696 N.E.2d 568.

{¶5} In the instant case, petitioner avers his bond was revoked. The judgment entry revoking the bond would be essential to understanding this petition as would any orders of detention if separate from the bond revocation judgment entry. *3 Because Petitioner has not named a respondent and because Petitioner

has failed to attach all necessary commitment papers, the petition is dismissed. By: Hoffman, J.

Delaney, P.J. and

Wise, Earle, J. concur

Case Details

Case Name: In re Olmstead
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Oct 23, 2017
Citation: 2017 Ohio 8291
Docket Number: 17-COA-036
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.