State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- State ex rel. Thomas v. Sheldon (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
- Bates v. [Respondent] (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
- Sostre v. McFaul, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
- State Ex Rel Brown v. Highland Height P.D., Unpublished Decision (6-5-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
- State Ex Rel. Riley v. Dept. Corr., Unpublished Decision (8-31-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
- Matter of Corley, Unpublished Decision (5-6-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
- Boyd v. Money (Ohio 1998)
- Boyd v. Money (Ohio 1998)
- Fears v. Cooper (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
- State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul (Ohio 1998)
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
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.
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.”).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.