Opinion · Ohio Supreme Court

Bloss v. Rogers

65 Ohio St. 3d 145

Type: Opinion
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Date: 1992-12-09
Topic: general

“When a petition is presented to a court that does not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D | “When a petition is presented to a court that does not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D | “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” | “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”

Citator

Cited by: 72 opinions

Per Curiam.

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 *146 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.