Ohio Supreme Court, 1997

Workman v. Shiplevy

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided October 29, 1997 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

80 Ohio St. 3d 174; 685 N.E.2d 231

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2019)
Tayse v. Erdos (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
Small v. Collins (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
Billman v. Smith (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
Bradley v. Hooks (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
Pryor v. Lazaroff (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul (Ohio 1998)
Hughley v. Saunders, 09 Ca 6 (3-6-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
Tierney v. Tierney, 2007-T-0095 (6-6-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
Workman v. Shiplevy (Ohio 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Workman asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. In order to withstand dismissal, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must conform to R.C. 2725.04 and state with particularity the extraordinary circumstances entitling the petitioner to the writ. McBroom v. Russell (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 47, 48, 671 N.E.2d 10,11.

The court of appeals correctly held that Workman did not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D) because he did not attach all his pertinent commitment papers. Brown v. Rogers (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 340-341, 650 N.E.2d 422, 423. The nunc pro tunc entry attached to Workman’s petition references sentences in nine different criminal cases which were not attached to the petition. Although Workman’s claim is primarily based on the nunc pro tunc entry, the court of appeals did not err in holding that the other judgments referred to in that entry *175were pertinent and that it was impossible to have a complete understanding of Workman’s claim without them. Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602.

In addition, even assuming that Workman’s contentions on appeal are correct, reversal of the court of appeals’ judgment is unwarranted because Workman also failed to verify his petition in accordance with R.C. 2725.04. McBroom, 77 Ohio St.3d at 48, 671 N.E.2d at 11; Messer v. McAninch (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 1511, 673 N.E.2d 1383.

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-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.