State ex rel. Collins v. Leonard

See case details

THE STATE EX REL. COLLINS, APPELLANT, v. LEONARD, WARDEN, APPELLEE.

No. 97-1351

Supreme Court of Ohio

December 31, 1997

[Cite as State ex rel. Collins v. Leonard (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 477.]

U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (Health risk posed by prison personnel‘s exposure of inmate to environmental tobacco smoke stated cause of action under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code for violation of Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of Eighth Amendment where inmate alleged that (1) he was assigned to a cell with another inmate who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day, (2) cigarettes were sold to inmates without a proper health hazard warning, (3) certain cigarettes burned continuously and released some type of chemical, and (4) the plaintiff inmate suffered from health problems caused by exposure to cigarette smoke.);

State ex rel. Fain v. Summit Cty. Adult Probation Dept. (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 658, 659, 646 N.E.2d 1113, 1114 (Inmates are required to plead specific facts rather than unsupported conclusions in order to withstand dismissal of complaint for writ of mandamus.).

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs separately.

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring. Prison officials transferred McCrary out of Bruni‘s cell on July 7, 1997, three days before Bruni filed his notice of appeal in this court. Therefore, Bruni‘s claims are moot to the extent that they relate to his claims of assault and harassment by cellmate McCrary. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the majority to reach the first two issues.

(Submitted December 3, 1997—Decided December 31, 1997.)

Robert E. Collins, pro se.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Donald Gary Keyser, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam. Collins asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition because his trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him after it failed to comply with R.C. 2945.06. R.C. 2945.06 specifies certain requirements “[i]n any case in which a defendant waives his right to trial by jury and elects to be tried by the court under section 2945.05 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2945.05 and 2945.06 must consequently be construed in pari materia. See, e.g.,

State ex rel. Larkins v. Baker (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 658, 659-660, 653 N.E.2d 701, 703.

We hold that an alleged violation of R.C. 2945.06 is not a proper subject for habeas corpus relief and may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction. See, e.g.,

Jackson v. Rose (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 51, 679 N.E.2d 684;

State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the syllabus; see, also,

State v. Post (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 380, 393, 513 N.E.2d 754, 767, where we addressed a claimed violation of R.C. 2945.06 in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction. In addition, we have never held that the failure to comply with the R.C. 2945.06 witness-examination requirement is a jurisdictional defect. Cf.

Pless.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed the petition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State ex rel. Collins v. Leonard

Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 31, 1997

Citation: 80 Ohio St. 3d 477

Docket Number: 1997-1351

Court Abbreviation: Ohio