[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 81 Ohio St.3d 193.]

THE STATE EX REL. WYNN, APPELLANT, v. MCFAUL, SHERIFF, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul, 1998-Ohio-637.] Mandamus to compel release from commitment—Petition dismissed for failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). (No. 97-2036—Submitted January 13, 1998—Decided March 4, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 72993. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Turhan Wynn, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County for a writ of habeas corpus. Wynn claimed that he had been arrested “pursuant to a capias” for a probation violation charge and that he had not been promptly brought before a court for a hearing on the charge. Wynn did not attach any commitment papers to his petition. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Wynn’s petition because he failed to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D) by not attaching any commitment papers. {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Turhan Wynn, pro se. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} Wynn asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his petition. In order to withstand dismissal, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must conform to R.C. 2725.04 and allege with particularity the extraordinary circumstances entitling the petitioner to the writ. Workman v. Shiplevy (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 174, 685 N.E.2d 231. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 4} The court of appeals properly dismissed Wynn’s petition because he did not comply with the R.C. 2725.04(D) requirement to attach his pertinent commitment papers. Wynn did not attach a copy of the capias for his arrest, which he alleged to be the cause of his commitment. See McBroom v. Russell (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 47, 48, 671 N.E.2d 10, 11; Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602, 603 (“These commitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the petition. Without them the petition is fatally defective.”). {¶ 5} Based on the foregoing, 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. __________________

2