Summary
In Bloss, the Court observed: "When a petition is presented to a court that does not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), there is no showing of how the commitment was procured and there is nothing before the court on which to make a determined judgment except, of course, the bare allegations of petitioner's application."
Summary of this case from May-Dillard v. StateOpinion
No. 92-215
Submitted September 14, 1992 —
Decided December 9, 1992.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. CA91110080.
On November 25, 1991, appellant, Mark Bloss, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Allen County, seeking relief from confinement at the residential treatment program at the Allen Correctional Institution.
Appellant alleges he was given his parole revocation hearing on June 27, 1991, where it was determined he violated rules 2 and 5 of his parole, and his parole was revoked. Appellant claims he is a paranoid schizophrenic and that he was afraid to tell his parole officer of his change of address for fear the parole officer was out to harm him. He also claims that he is incompetent to manage his daily life; that he has someone pay his rent, etc.; and that since he cannot perform these daily functions, he cannot be held responsible for not attending counseling.
Rule 2:
"I will always keep my probation/parole officer informed of my residence and place of employment."
Rule 5:
"To attend psychological counseling * * *."
On December 5, 1991, the court of appeals issued a journal entry dismissing appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, stating in part:
"* * * [T]he court finds that R.C. 2725.04(D) requires that a copy of the commitment or cause of detention of the petitioner be exhibited."
The cause is before the court upon an appeal as of right.
Mark Bloss, pro se.
Appellant claims it is unconstitutional to revoke a mentally ill person's parole for violations caused by his mental illness. The court of appeals reached the correct conclusion when it dismissed appellant's complaint for failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). These commitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the petition. Without them, the petition is fatally defective. When a petition is presented to a court that does not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), there is no showing of how the commitment was procured and there is nothing before the court on which to make a determined judgment except, of course, the bare allegations of petitioner's application. In re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus of Wells (Jan. 27, 1984), Lucas App. No. L-84-015, unreported, 1984 WL 4214.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.