Smith v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst.

• Decision Date: 21 June 2022
• Docket Number: 22 BE 0002
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 2217
• Parties: HENRY DEANDRE SMITH, Relator, v. WARDEN, BELMONT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2022-Ohio-2217

HENRY DEANDRE SMITH, Relator,
v.
WARDEN, BELMONT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.

No. 22 BE 0002

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Belmont

June 21, 2022

Writ of Habeas Corpus

JUDGMENT: Dismissed.

Atty. Dave Yost, Attorney General of Ohio, Atty. Lisa K. Browning, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Section, for Respondent.

Henry Deandre Smith, pro se, #A778-468, Belmont Correctional Institution, for Relator.

BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, David A. D'Apolito, Judges.

1

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Petitioner Henry Deandre Smith has filed this original action seeking a writ of habeas corpus arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue his judgment entry of conviction and sentence. Smith is a self-represented prison inmate and his hand-written petition names as respondent the warden of the Belmont Correctional Institution, where he is presently imprisoned. Counsel for the warden has filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court dismisses the petition because Smith has failed to file a proper affidavit of his prior civil actions and appeals as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). Additionally, the basis for Smith's assertion that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him-an unsigned arrest warrant-is not one that can be raised in a habeas corpus cause of action.

{¶2} Smith is serving a mandatory, aggregate 8-year prison term for his 2020 convictions of heroin trafficking and possessing criminal tools. Smith contends the sentencing court did not have jurisdiction over him because his arrest warrant was not signed, notarized, or given under oath. In support, Smith has attached to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus an exhibit purporting to be a copy of the arrest warrant. The document is not an arrest warrant issued upon a criminal complaint, but rather a warrant to arrest on indictment. The warrant expressly references an indictment attached thereto. Notably though, Smith did not include the indictment with the attached exhibit. Therefore, the exhibit is incomplete. This infirmity aside, Smith's petition is nevertheless procedurally deficient.

{¶3} An inmate who files a civil action against a government employee or entity must comply with specific filing requirements as set forth in R.C. 2969.25. A habeas

2

corpus action is a civil action and therefore the provisions of R.C. 2969.21 through 2969.27 are applicable to such action. Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, syllabus. The warden is a government employee and Smith, incarcerated in the Belmont Correctional Institution, is a self-represented inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C) and (D).

{¶4} R.C. 2969.25(A) requires an inmate who commences in the court of appeals a civil action or appeal against a governmental entity or employee to file an affidavit containing "a...