From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rayford v. Shaffer

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
Mar 3, 2010
2010 Ohio 784 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)

Opinion

No. 94629.

RELEASE DATE: March 3, 2010.

Writ of Habeas Corpus Order No. 431061.

PETITION DISMISSED.

George Rayford, pro se, S.O. #Inmate 0231024, Cuyahoga County Jail, for Relator.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, Attorneys for Respondent.


JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION


George Rayford, the petitioner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the following reasons, we sua sponte dismiss Rayford's petition for a writ of habeas corpus

Rayford's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is procedurally defective for the following reasons:

(1) petition fails to contain a sworn and notarized affidavit that complies with Loc. App. R. 45(B)(1)(a);

(2) petition fails to contain a sworn and notarized affidavit of indigency;

(3) petition fails to contain a statement that sets forth balance in inmates account for the preceding six months and/or all of the cash and things of value owned by the inmate, as required by R.C. 2969.25;

(4) petition fails to contain a sworn and notarized affidavit that describes each civil action or appeal filed within the previous five years in any state or federal court; and

(5) petition fails to contain copies of all pertinent commitment papers as required by R.C. 2725.04(D).

See Tisdale v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-3833, 870 N.E.2d 1191; Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 2001-Ohio-49, 744 N.E.2d 763. See, also, State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 914 N.E.2d 402; Martin v. Woods, 121 Ohio St.3d 609, 2009-Ohio-1928, 906 N.E.2d 1113; Humphrey v. Ohio Water Parks, Inc. (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 403, 646 N.E.2d 908; State ex rel. Davis, Cuyahoga App. No. 90533, 2008-Ohio-584; Morris v. Bureau of Sentence Computation, Cuyahoga App. No. 89517, 2007-Ohio-1444; State ex rel. McKay v. Corrigan, Cuyahoga App. No. 88340.

It must also be noted that Rayford's petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Habeas corpus is not available to challenge the validity of a charging instrument. Shroyer v. Banks, 123 Ohio St.3d 88, 2009-Ohio-4080, 914 N.E.2d 368; McCuller v. Hudson, 121 Ohio St.3d 168, 2009-Ohio-721, 902 N.E.2d 979.

Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss Rayford's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Costs to Rayford. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ. R. 58(B).

Petition dismissed.

ANN DYKE, J., and LARRY A. JONES, J., CONCUR.


Summaries of

Rayford v. Shaffer

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
Mar 3, 2010
2010 Ohio 784 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)
Case details for

Rayford v. Shaffer

Case Details

Full title:George Rayford, Relator v. Warden Shaffer, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County

Date published: Mar 3, 2010

Citations

2010 Ohio 784 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)