In re Olmstead

[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 OPINION

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, 8th 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.”

{¶4} 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{¶5} In the instant case, petitioner avers his bond was revoked.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.

{¶6} 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