12-1308 - sconet.state.oh.us Mr.Stefoun D. Hunter, ... eas Corpus Petition, ... titioner's Habeas Corpus Action, failed to come to judgment on the various mot-

ORIGiNAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12-1308Mr.Stefoun D. Hunter,

Petitioner/Pro se

vs.

Mrs. Debra T. Cooper, Warden-L.O.C.I.,P.O. BOX (69)London-Ohio 43140-0069

R ESPONDENT

Mr.Mike Dewine, State Attorney General,

(30)East Broad St.,Columbus-Ohio

(17th)Floor.. 43215-3428

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.,

Assistant ST. Atty. General,

Maura O'Neill Jaite

CASE#

Judge,

Irix'e': PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. PURSUANT

TO Ox.C. § 2725.01 et seq.

SUCCESSIVE PETITION/ORIGINAL

ACTION

"EVIDENTIARY HEARING REQUESTED"

FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS

OF LAW REQUESTED

Now comes the Petitioner Mr. Stefoun D. HuntQx, in pro se fashion, and hereby,

Respectfully Petition's this instant Most Honorable Ohio Supreme Court, for the Extr.a-

or.dinary,:.Writ of Habeas Corpus, SUCCESSIVE PETITION, of EMERGENCY STATUS, as above list-

ed and pursuant to the aforelisted Authority. This Most High Ohio Supr.eme Court hereof,

has Original Jurisdiction of the Subject Matter, via Ohio Const. Art. IV, § (2).Notwith-

standing, O.R.C. § (2725.01)et seq.

A SEPARATE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT ACCOMPANIES THIS AC.TION AND IS MADE A PART HEREOF.

PETITIONER'S 3WORN AFFIDAVIT OF VERITY AT PAGE(61)hPaceof.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

AT PAGE( &4')EERRFAF. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

f

P.(1)AUG 0 2 2012

CLERK OF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO

London-Ohio

Nr.Stefodn D. Huntei"#(A)638-789Petitioner/Pieo seL.O.C.I., Prison. PO BOX (69)

AUG 02 2Q1?

CLERK OF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO

SEPARATE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Now before this instant Most Honorable Ohio Supreme Court, is the petitioner,

Mr. Stefoun D. Huntex, as afore, and hereby submits his CAUSE for the instant Emer-

gency Writ of Habeas Corpus Action.

4#(1),First and Foremost, the petitioner hereof, would state that he has previous-

ly presented his instant claim to the Local Madison County Court of Common Pleas,for

considPxation of the issues raised herein. The Modison County Common Pleas Court, has

by virtue of acts to the best of the petitioner's knowledge and belief, constitute act's

which DEPRIVE the petitioner of his Appellate Procedural Due Process Rights to Appeal

the ERRONEOUS TERMINATION of the petitioner's State Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Cor.-

pus Action.

q #(2),The Madison County Court of Common Pleas, as mentioned above, has deliberately

setfort it's Erroneous Termination of the petitioner's Writ of Habeas Cor.pus Action, &

knowingly failed to afford to the petitioner,the Habeas Ct's., FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CON-

CLUSIONS OF LAW, AS PART OF THE MADISON COUNTYHABEAS Ct's, judgment of Termination of

the petitioner's habeas corpus action. This being an effort to wrongfully deprive the

petitioner of his rights to REVIEW of the trial Ct's., Erroneous Termination of his Hab-

eas Corpus Petition, by the TweAh Appellate District Court ofAppeals, Moreover., the

Madison County Habeas Corpus Ct., deliberately and maliciously with malice aforethought,

zvithheld it's Erroneous Termination of the petitioner.'s Habeas Corpus Action, by failing

to give cause to it's Clerk of Court, to timely forward to the petitioner, by U.S. mail,

said Erroneous Termination, until the time in which the petitioner hereof, could ncw, seek

the Madison County Habeas Ct's., FINDINGS OFFACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, according to

the applicable rules of cour.t.Ther.e and by the same, depriving the petitioner of a final

appealable Order, in which to proceed to the appeals court as r.equired via the appellate

court rule of procedure. P.(2)

SEE: The Erroneous Tezmination Judgment Entry and Order file stsmpet3

and dated (06/28/12) and the Federal Postal Envelope "Postmak'ked"

July (16th) of (2012),wel1 beyond the time to seek the Madison Co,

Habeas Ct's., Findings of Facts and Conclusions of law, at pages

( .5 and 6 )hereof.

11#(3),The petitioner hPxeof, would further state that the Habeas Ct., of Madison

Co., prior to it's entering of the aforementioned Er.r.oneous Termination of the pe-

titioner's Habeas Corpus Action, failed to come to judgment on the various mot-

ions in which the petitioner had filed seeking relief from the Malicious Miscon-

duct.,violative of the petitioner's State and Feder.al Constitutional Rights,Notwith-

standing, the various Pr.ohibitedConduct/as listed under. Rule (8.4)MISCONDUCT; of

the Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Pr.ofession3l Conduct. Whereas the Respondent and

her. Attorney of r.ecord one Maura O'Neill Jaite (0058524), being the Assis*_a.nt ST.,

Attorney General, assigned to represent the Respondent, one Mrs. Deborah T. Cooper,

Warden-L:O.C.I.-Pr.ison, as the Two Respondents had engaged in conduct to the best

of the petitioner's knowledge and belief, constituted an illegal SHAM LEGAL PROCESS

by way of a CONSPIRACY to illegally deprive the petitioner of the Habeas Corpus re-

lief, in which he was and is clearly entitled to by law and his State and Federal

Constitutional Rights, aforementioned herein.

1I#(4), After the petitioner's filing of his State Writ of Habeas Corpus Action in

the Madison Co., Cthse, on (03/02/12), The Ct., of the case subjudice, appar.ently

ordered the Return of Writ, via the respondent, accordingt_o the Habeas Rules. The

respondent's return of Writ, to be brief, and to the b^st of the petitioner's know-

ledge, is what constitutes the above mentioned SHAM LEGAL PROCESS AND CONSPIRACY,

mentioned above, SEE: SAID ILLEGAL, UNETHICAL, MALICIOUS, RESPONDENT'S RE7URN OF

WRTT, AT PAGES ( 2^ THRU 3 9)HEREOF, AND THE PEPITIONER'S MOTION TO "STRIKE" THE

SAME, AT PAGES (^D THRU,% ) HEREOF, WHI(H MOTION TO STRIKE, CLEARLY SUBSTANTIATFS

THE Ti.T Fx;Ai.TTIES MENi'IONED ABOVE, WHICH HAS BEEN ALLSDWED TO (70 UNSANCPIONED BY THE

P.(3)

Madison Co., Habeas Ct., with full knowledge of the illegalities and

unethical, malicious, act;s,<cammitted by the respondent and her Counsel of

reoord.

14(5), The petitioner hereof, also, had filed his motion for. Summary Judgment,

after there was no response to the petitiosier's motion to STRIKE, said motion

for. SUMMARY JUDGMENT, was filed in the Madison Co., Cthse, on (06/13/12), and

has not been adjudicated by the Madison Co., Habeas Ct., as required by the Civ.

rules applicable thereof, Nor had there been a responsive pleadin3 filed by the

respopdent, refuting the allegations raised by the petitioner therein, said mot-

ion for Summary Judgment, SEE: SAID MO'i'ION FOR SUNMARY JUmfEBiP AT PAGFS ( s5V thru

^® 'IEEREOF.

"AT THIS JUNCIURE OF THE PETITIONER'S HABEAS ACTION,"THE PETITIONER

N10ULD REQUFST THAT THE INSTANT MOST HONORABLE ®HIO SUPREME CWRT CJONSIDER THE FO-

LLOWING PREVIOUSLY FILED WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, IN WHICH THE PETITIONER

FILED IN THE MADISIDN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CTHSE ON (03/02/12) , THIS RE-

QUFST IS BEING MADE IN THE INTEREST OF THE COURT BEING INFORMED OF THE PETITION-

ER'S GROUNDS FOR REC.IEF AND STATFI4EEDIP OF FACTS, AS CONCISE AND ACCURATELY AS POS-

SIBLE, THAT THE ISSUES RAISED THE:REOF, ARE NOT CONFUSINGTO THE INSTANT MOST HIGH

OHIO SUPREME COURT, FOR IT'S CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME, AND FOR IT'S FAIR ADJUDI-

CATION OF THE SAME. PAGES (I THRU ^^ )HEREOF.

H2ESPECPFULLY SUBMITTED,

P.(4)

Mr.Ste un D. Hunter#(A)638-789

Petitioner/Pro se-L.O.C.I.

PO BOX (69)London-Ohio43140-0069

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MADISON COUNTY, OHIO

Stefoun D. Hunter,

Petitioner,

-vs-

Case No. CVH 20120070n

ENTRY

°

Deborah Timmerman-Cooper, Warden.

Respondent.

The Court previously found petitioner was not then an inmate at London

Correctional Institution. Therefore, summary judgment was entered in favor of

respondent and the case terminated. Petitioner was returned to Montgomery County for

prosecution of a reversed conviction.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

ENTER: June 26, 2012

cc: .__. Stefoun HunterMaura O' Neill JaiteCourt Administrator

Robert D. Nichols, Judge

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISIS A TRUE COPYOFT+HIEORIGINAL ON FILE

RENAE s;, ZABLOUDILYlCLERK C COI R-^

'S tq , c+ , yt -S

P.(6)

io ^ z1

o a+ ^X 3

n'=(^rl v L d.i c

W ye N C

o m.^r

a

Cdvle4^5 Cb VMe f i l0-0 JJflt" 4 Jre 7VAnl !c^711A Pqsn^- ,^^ vt

WfthAS c4 p C^ .

IN THE MADISON COUNTY COURT qE. q

COMMON PLEAS

Mr.Stefoun D.Hun*_er,

-vs-

Petitioner/Pro se

The State of Ohio,Mrs. Deb Timmerman Cooper,

Warden-Lo,c,ir RESPONDENT

Mr. Nike De_*^,*:.n^® State Attry.GPne_ral

Counsel for the Respondent,

State Office Tower (30)E.Broad St.,

Col-Ohio 43215

ABt»OUDIL. qQ }}Qh'!=^.Hon.Judge,RobertD.NiChols

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

Pursuant to O.R.C.§2725.01

et seq, tiì?u 2725.2°.

"NOTE" SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHALL

BE SOUGHT FOR THE FAILURE TO

RESPOND ACCORDING TO THE APP-

LICABLE RULE OF CIVIL PROCED-

URE.Via O.R.C. §(2725.12)t-h.ru

(2725.15).EVIDENTIARY HEARING

REQUFSTED

Now comes ±he Per_i±ioner, One Mr. Stefoun D. Hun*_Pr, #A638-789,

of ±hA London Ohio Correctional Institution,and in pro se fashion and

hereby Petitions this instant Madision County Court of Common Pleas, for

a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, as above listed and pursuant to the above listed

Ohio Revised Codes. Jurisdiction is vested hereof, the instant Ct, via O.R.C.§(2725.03).

Affidavit of Verity & Indigentcy

at pages( a;3 & _ + )hereof.

A memorandum in support of the foregoing is attached hereto and

made a part of the same.


AT PAGE ( ^ 3 )hereof.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

or'(24).

DMr. StJefoun D. Hunter

# A638-789-Petitioner/

pro se-L.O.C.I.-PO BOX

(69)LONDON-OHI0I^43140-

0069.

P.(2)

Now before this Most Honorable Madison County Court of Common

Pleas, is the petitioner and hereby submits his cause for the issuance of the

instant relief now being sought via +1'tis requested WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, Pet-

ition.

n#(1),First and foremost, the petitioner herein, would ask that he as a lay-

man of the law, be afforded that of a Liberal Construction and inferrence via

the same less standard thereof, that a professional Attorney would be held to

by t_he.instant Ct, in it's adjudication of the foregoing action.

PETITION

1. Name and location of couit which entered the judgment of conviction under attack The Montgomery Co. Court of

Common Pleas, 41 N. PERRY Street., Dayton-Ohio 45422-0000

2. Dateofjudgmentofconviction 10 / 08 / 10 )

3. Length oyf sentence SEE •'rhe Montgomery Co. Ct' s Judgment entry of sentencing at pages ( if

thru I 1 ) hereof . r^q4. Nature of offense involved (all counts) cEE : pages ( 8 thru I ^/ ) hereofa being the Montaomerp

Co. Ct's, OFFENSE AND SENTENCING DOCUMENTS-EXPRESSING THE DESIRED INFORMATION UNDER

QUESTIONNUMBER (4) hereof.

5. whatwasyourplea7'(Check one)

(a) 17ot guilty q(b)Guilty q N/A(c) Nolo conrenaGre q

If you-entered a guilty plea to one count or indictment, and a not guilty plea to another count or indictment, give details:

I was found guilty by a Jury of (12) of my peers.

y,, what l:ind of trial did you have? (Check one)lt6. If you pleaded not gui,_,

(a) Jury p%X(b) Judge only q

7. Did you testify at ,th,,e/tcial?

Yes q No

^

^¢c

8. Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction?

Yes ® No q

9. If you did appeal, answer the following:

(a) Name of court The Cour± of Appeals of Ohio-Second Appellate Distric*_ Mon±gomery Co.

(b) Result Remanded in part and affirmed in part/REVERSED Firearm SpEc/Weapons underDisability.

(c) Date of residt and citation, if known ( 12/09/11)

(d) Groundsraised SEE: +he Final Entry and Opinion of the Second Appella±e Dist.C±.,

at page ( 5) of the Opinion of the above mentioned Final En±ry.(e) If you sought further review of the decision on appeal by a higher state court, please answer the following:

I did no±/ N/A--f

(2) Result

N/A

(3)

(4)

N/A

Date of result and citation, if known

Grounds raised N / A

N/A

(f)each direct appeal:

N/A

If you filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, please answer the following with respect to

(1) Name of court

(2) Result N / A

(3)

(4)

N/A I did not seek Cer±iorari, no where at any time.

Date of result and citation, if known

Grounds raised N / A

N/A

10. Other than a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, have you previously filed any petitions, appllcations, ormotions with respect to this judgment in any court, state or federal?Yes q No 92 X

11. If your answer to 10 was "yes," give the following information:

(a) (1) Name of court N/ A

(2) Nature of proceeding N/ A

N/A

RI

N/A

N/A

N/A

(4) Did you receive an evidentiary hearing on your petition, application or motion?

Yes q No [^ X

(5) Resulf N / A

(6) Dateofresult N/A

etiEten-appkeattea-er-motion-gwethasame-infermatien-Ai-/-A-

(1) Nameofcourt N/A

(2) Nature of proceeding N / A

(3) Grounds raisedN/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

12.

(4) Did you receive an evidentiaryhearing. on your petition, application or motion? N/ A

Yes q No &I X

(5) Result N / A

(6) Date ofresult N / A -

(c) Did you appeal to the highest state courthaving jurisdiction the result of action taken on any petition, application ormotion?(1) Pirstpetition,etc. Yes q No ©X(2)Secondpetition; etc. Yes "q No -[DX

(d) If you did not appeal from the adverse action on any petition, application or motion, explain briefly why you did not:

The ruling was rendEred in my favor.

State concisely every ground on which you claim that you are being held unlawfully. Summarize briefly thefacts suppo

eachground. If necessary, you may attach pages stating additional grounds and facts supporting sarne.g

PA

For your information, the following is a list of the most frequently raised grounds for relief in habeas corpus proceedings.Each statement preceded by a letter constitutes a separate Qround for possible relief. You may raise any grounds which youmay have other than those listed:

FDo not check any of these listed grounds. If you select one or more of these grounds for relief, you must allege facts. Thepetition wiIl be returned to you if you merely check (a) through (j) or any one of these grounds.

(a) Conviction obtained by plea of guilty which was unlawfully induced or not made voluntarily with understanding of thenature of the charge and the consequences of the plea.

(b) Conviction obtained by use of coerced confession.

(c) Conviction obtained by use of evidence gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure.

Fursnanttaarrnnlavsful-arrest-- ---- -

(e) Conviction obtained by a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination.

(f) Conviction obtained by the unconstitutional failure of the prosecution to disclose to the defendant evidence favorable tothe defendant.

(g) Conviction obtained by a violation of the protection against double jeopardy.

(h) Conviction obtained by action of a grand or petit jury which was unconstitutionally selected and impaneled.

(i) Denial of effective assistance of counsel.

(j) Denial of right of appeal.

A. Ground one: The petlt9.oner hFxeof is beingres+1"ained of his freec7om & 1 i hertv by

Vi.rtue of his rperson being held in prison bevond the tFrm of imnri m mFnt ' sedby the sentencing Ct, under Color of the law, & his State & Federal Const.,Ric>hts.Supporting FACTS (state briefly without citing cases or law)

The effect of the Ruling of +1ze Second Appellai-e Dis+xict Court of Appeals, as was

pronounced and journalized on (12/09/11) rendered the cFntFnre imnnced hy +h Trial

C+_ in connection to the conviction obtained against +he pe+itioner , for i-lie offense

of Bavinq Weapons Under Disability, and the Fir arm cpe ifiv ti ng-'1g0'fALLing-Al)-

One year , is by law , zendered Void ab Initio .The petitioner Must be afforce3 rrFVdi+-Bragainc+ thefor t-he +1111e served on th[ ct ntence`c i mpncel for thF ^3= n 1.wq_

sentence imposed for the (18)-Eic)ilteen Months, ft+r, +the Drug Possession charges.

&(13)daysThe pe+stioner hereof, has served a total of One ( 1) year and ( 06 )Mon+1ls,Clearly

his commitmom to.theState.of.Ohio,ended on or about ( 02 / 04 / 12 ).Rendering

+1ie peti+ioner's present state of incarceration illecgal unconstitutional Contra to

his State & Federal Constitutional Rigb+s to rn,e nrorr-GC F. Finial Pres+rrticenlf£+he

^c gii^r^n+ccvi him via the ( S+h & 41-h) mF?nrlmentG of +hF+ ri_C_ ['nnc+ Notwi+^7stanlaw ,

ding his same State Constitutional Riah+s via ART (l) 6'a (10) & (1F) SEE: t1ê fol-

linq page for additional information regardinq the statement in sunpor.t of the Cd2OU-

ND FOR RELIEF NUMBER ( 1) . at pa4e ( 5-B)hereof .

V,5(A)

P.(5-b)

4#(1)7'he petitioner has cause to believe according to law, that +1ze

Legal & Constitutional E.Efec+s of the Second District Court of Appeals-Judge-

ment, as was pronounced and journalized on (12/09/11), rendered the pctition-

er's conviction & sentences imposed by the trial Ct, at Mon*_gomc.ry Co., for

the aforementioned Gun Spec's & Weapons Under Disability, Void ab Initio, Due

to the Reversal of the petitioner's convictions for the same. To the best of

the petitioner's knowledge and belief, the Ruling of the Second Appellate Dist-

rict Court of Appeals, was based upon the Plain Error, Doctrine, In which Crim-

inal Rule (52) (B) was applicable and or administred by the (2nd)Appellate.Dist.

Ct., of App., as Criminal Rule (52)(B) States in pertinent part that:

PLAIN ERRORS OR DEFECTS AFFECTÌNG SOBSTANTIAL RIGHTS

MAY BE NOTICED ALTHOUGH THEY WERE NOT BRODGEII' TO THE

A7TENTION OF THE COUR'f.

it#(2),The pei-itioner hereof, would logically come to the prudent minded

conclusion that the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals, in +heir decis-

ion making process, must have considered +he "PLAIN ERROR ANALYSIS" when they

concluded that the trial Court's finding.^+ha+_ weapons found in the home were

found in plain view during a lawful search for PERSONS is predicated upon a Mis-

take of fact +hat we cannot find to have been HARMi.RSg.°SEE": page ((2)of the

Opinion of +he (2nd)Appellate Dist. Ct., of Appeals, UNDERLINED herein, for the

ins+ant Madison County Ct's, consideration of +he saipe.

II#(3),The petitioncr's conviction for the aforementioned wcapons charges

did not stand accordingly, it would be FUTILE and a CLEAR ABUSE OF THE MONTGOMERY

CO., COURT'S;,descretion, to allow the Sta+ê of Ohio, at Montgomery Co., to prose-

cute the petitioncr once again, in light of +he Ruling of the (2nd) Appellate.Dist.

Ct., of Appeals, as a subsequent defensive motion to suppress, would ultimately

P.(5-C)

prevail in connection to the suppression of the weapons seized, due

to the unconstitutionality of the search executed as aforemention by the (2nd)

Dist. Ct., of Appeals, in their Opinion, journalized on (12/09/11). Moreover,

and most certianly, the defense would with out doubt, file a pretrial motion

OBJECTING to the defects in the indictment, information, and or complaint, in

the institution of the prosecution via Criminal Rule (12)(C)sub S's (1)+hr.u(4).

11#(4), 7'HII2E@'ORE AND IN CONCLUSION,

The petitioner would state that reasqnable prudent minded Juris, con-

sidering the Facts, Evidence and Constitutional ramifications and law, involved

in the case at hand, could come to but one (1), conclusion and +1hat conclusion

being that petitioner is in fact being held beyond the term of imprisonment as

imposed by the trial Ct., in and for Montgomery County, inlight of the affects

of the aforementioned Judgement, Ruling and Journalization of its Opinion, enter-

ed of recor.d, on (12/09/11)yBy way of the ( 2nd) AppPllate Dis*xict Ct., of Appeals.

4#(5),Moreove.r., the State of Ohio, at Montgomery Co., Dayton-Ohio, as the

appellee's in the petitioner's appeal of the aforementioned criminal case and con-

viction aforementioned herein, above, HAD (30) days inwhich to Appeal, the judge-

ment of the (2nd) Dis+xict. Court of Appeal, and did not do so, ther.eandby+_hesame,

has Waived their right to do so. The decision of the Second Appellate District Ct.,

of Appeals, Must Stand for Evermore, and in favor of the petitioner herein, as is

relied on by the petitioner herein, for all practical reasons regarding the instant

Madison County Court's consideration of the facts of the instant case at bar.

C. Ground three: NONE

Supporting FACTS (state briefly without citing cases or law) NONE

D. Ground four: NONE

Supporting FACTS (state briefly without citing cases or law): NONE

13. If any of the grounds listed in 12A,B,C, and D were hot previously presented in any other court, state or federal, state brieflywhat grounds were not so presented, and give your reasons for not presenting them: NOT APPLICABLE N/A

14. Do you have any petition or appeal now pending in any court, either state or federal, as to the judgment under attack?Yes q No ®

15. Give the name and address, if lamown, of each attomey who represented you in the following stages of the judgment attackedherein:(a) At preliminary hearing Mary FrAibergea^j.s, 240 James Bohanan Dr, Vandalia Mon+gom?r Y Co.

937-264-0149 private a±+xy, at Montgomery Co. Ct., appointed.

(b) At arraignment and plea

same as above.

I^ CJ

(c) At trial

retained.Mr . AAnthony S . Vannov Mon+^Lomcrv Co . pr;ca+c ++ T-

(d) Atsentencing ( 130) West . Second Street , Ste ( 1600) Day+An-Ohio 45402.937-222-7477

same as above.

(e) On appeal

Mr Enriquc G . Rivera , Cerezo , Appoin+ed by the appeals C+ P.O. BOX 734-Dayton-OH

Tel, # (937)305-6764 45419jP1 .._îctien^receedin^ ^

(g) On appeal from any adverse ruling in a post-conviction proceeding

16. Were you sentenced on more than one count of an indictment, or on more than one indictment, in the same court and at the same

time?Yes No q

17. Do you have any fu e sentence to serve after you complete the sentence imposed by the judgment under attack?Yes q No(a) If so, give name and location of court which imposed sentence to be served in the future:

(b ve dat and length of the above sentence:

M s^4 1 A^llW4 ÂA I(2 10 Cl(c) Have you filed, or do you contemplate filing, any petition attacking the judgment which imposed the sentence to be

served in the future? ^Yes q No

RELIEF PRAYED FOR

Wherefore, petitioner prays that the Court grant petitioner relief to which he may be entitled in this proceeding, and grant theevi.dentiar. y hearing sought or order the release of 4-1ie petitioner forthwi+-1i accordingto +h? laws relied upon her. ein.

SignaturY of Attorney (if any)

I declare under penalty of pepury that the foregoing is true and correct. Execute on

62 425/12) ^y^date) ' k P ^ .^4^

Signatur `fPetitioner I^^

V7

Montgomery County CommonPleas Court-General Division41 N. Perry St. P.O. Box 972

Dayton, OH 45422

STATE OF OHIOV PLAINTIFF

STEFOUN DERAY HUNTER

DEFENDANT

CASE NUMBER(S)

2009-CR-406912

1111119N

FILEt3Of COMMCiN PLEAS

2fl N4V - 3 A 0 21Rcf` t i N. BnUSN

+ , .. •ytn

I

JUOGE

SCHMITT FOR WISEMAN

DEFENDANTS DATE OF BIRTH

12-22-1981

DATE OF SENTENCING

10-28-2010

OFFENSESENTENCE ecutivrtCon Cnneurrent

Ohio Revised Code Felony Levels

HAVING WEAPONS UNDER DtSABILITY (PRIOROURG CONVICTION)

3 YEARS CRC1-,y

^(

q

2923.13 (A) F3

HAVING WEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY (PRIORDURG CONVICTION)

1YR CRC CONCURRENT TO CT1q ®

2923.13(A) F3

HAVING WEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY (PRIORDURG CONVICTION)

1 YR CRC CONCURRENT TO CTS I AND 2q

Fgl

2923.13 (A) F3

POSSESSION OF COCAINE (5 GRAMS BUT LESSTHAN 25 GRAMS - OTHER THAN CRACK)

18 MONTHS CRC CONCURRENT TO ALLOTH ER COUNTS q ^

2925,11 (A) F4

THREE (3) MANDATORY ONE YEAR PRISONTERMS FOR FIREARM SPECIFICATION TO COUNT4

1 YEAR CRC ON EACH CONCURRENT TOEACH OTHER BUT CONSECECUTIVE TO CT1 O ^

2929.1412941.141 -

Defendant was held in custody prior to conviction and sentencing for

Judge, Montgftiy County Common Pleas Court

97

It is the order of the Court that pursuant to ORC 2949.12, the above defendant is to be immediatelytransported and delivered to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections to begin servingthe above sentence(s) imposed by the Court. The defendant was advised of post release controlpursuant to ORC 2967.28.

Defendant was hetd in custody subsequent to conviction and sentencing for

days.

t 1 days.

Phil Plummer, SherifPof Montgomery Countyshumf

PunCnnel

ENTRY AND WARRANT TO TRANSPORTPRlSONER TO THE OHIO DEPARTMENT

OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONScffljR

1 1 ^

FOR COURT USE ONLY

Montgomery County Common ENTRY AND WARRANT TO TRANSPORTPleas Court-General Division PRISONER TO THE OHIO DEPARTMENT41 N. Perry St. P.O. Box 972 OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS

Dayton, OH 45422CASE NUMBERtS)

STATE OF OHIOPLAINnFF

y 2009-CR-406912


DEFENDANT

.fUDGE DEFENDANTS DATE OF aiRTH DATE OF SENTENCING

chr^„^ ^ t^ da t^f'î 1C7 a8 at'îrJ^t^.rcva.-nOFFENSE

SENTENCE 6anaecuiivo 4oMarrens

Ohio Revised Code Felony Level

POSSESSION OF COCAINE (LESS THAN 5 ORAMS 1S MONTHS CRCOTHER THAN CRACK) CONCURRENT TO ALL OTHER COUNTS q ©

2925.11 (A) F5

THREE (3) MANDATORY ONE YEAR PRISON 1 YEAR CRCTERMS FOR FIREARM SPECiFICATION TO COUNT ON EACH CONCURRENT TO EACH OTHER

HER COUNTSq ^j

I@J5 AND CONCURRENT TO ALL OT

2929.1412941.141

POSSESSION OF HEROIN I YEAR CRC CONCURRENT TO ALL OTHERCOUNTS „ _ _ . . q ®

2925.11 (A) F5

THREE (3) MANDATORY ONE YEAR PRISON 1 YEAR CRCTERMS FOR FIREARM SPECIFICATION TO COUNT ON EACH CONCURRENT TO EACH OTHER

UNTSCq ^

6 OAND CONCURRENT TO ALL OTHER

2929.14 ! 2941.141 -

q q

Defendant was held in custody prior to conviction and sentencing for ^ days.

'j^"'ts the order of the Court that pursuant to ORC 2949.92, the above defendant is to be immediatelytransported and delivered to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections to begin servingthe above sentence(s) imposed by the Court. The defendant was advised of post release controtpursuant to ORC 2967.28.

Judge, Montgo County Common Pleas Court

Defendant was held in custody subsequent to conviction and sentencing for ^ days.

Phil Plummer, Sheriff of Montgomery CountySho ff

gy Po,sonnai

w \

Pr 9

FOR COURT USE ONLY

Montgomery County Common ENTRY AND WARRANT TO TRANSPORT -----------------------

Pleas Court-General Division PRISONER TO THE OHIO DEPARTMENT41 N. Perry St. P.O. Box 972

OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONSDayton, OH 45422

CASE NUMBER(S)STATE OF OHIO

PUUN'nFFv 2009-CRA06912

STEFOUN DERAY HUNTER!!!

DEFENDANT

JUDGE DEFENDANT'S DATE OF BIRTH DATE OF SENTENCING

SCHMtTT FOR WISEMAN 12-22-1981 10-28-2010

OFFEi,a'È SENTENCE conûtuw Ccneurrent

Ohio Revised Code Felony Level

POSSESSION OF COCAINE (LESS THAN I GRAM - 1 YEAR CRC CONCURRENT TO ALL OTHERCRACK) COUNTS q ©

292511 (A) FS

THREE (3) MANDATORY ONE YEAR PRISON I YEAR CRCTERMS FOR FIREARM SPECIFICATION TO COUNT ON EACH CONCURRENT TO EACH OTHER

ER COUNTSq ©

7 AND CONCURRENT TO ALL OTH

2929.1412941.141 --

POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA (200 GRAMS BUT 1 YEAR CRC CONCURRENT TO ALL OTHER• LESS THAN 1,000 GRAMS) . COUNTS - . . O . (^t•.

I J

2925.11 (A) FS

THREE (3) MANDATORY ONE YEAR PRISON 1 YEAR CRCTERMS FOR FIREARM SPECIFICATION TO COUNT ON EACH CONCURRENT TO EACH OTHER

NTSq ©

$ AND CONCURRENT TO ALL OTHER COU

2929.14/2941.141 --

RC q qTOTAL: 4 YEARS C

Defendant was held in custody prior to conviction and sentencing for 97 days.

It is the order of the Court that pursuant to ORC 2949.12, the above defendant is to be immediatelytransported and delivered to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections to begin servingthe above sentence(s) imposed by the Court. The defendant was advised of post release controlpursuant to ORC 2967.28.

^^-Judge, Montgom County Common Pleas Court

Defendant was held in custody subsequent to conviction and sentencing for ^ days.

^ Phil Plummer, Sheriff of Moni,qOrnery Caunrysne.rcr

By Pmscnnn7

10

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIOCRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF OHIO CASE NO. 2009 CR 0406912

Plaintiff, JUDGE MARY WISEMAN

vs.

STEFOUN DERAY HUNTERDOB: 1212211981SSN:

Defendant.

AMENDED (sentence in count 5)TERMINATION ENTRY

1^^^^^ln

The defendant herein having been found Guiity by Jury to the following offenses:

COUNT 1: HAVING WEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY (prior drug conv) -2923.13(A)(3) F3;



COUNT 4: POSSESSION OF COCAINE (5g but <25g-other than crack) -2925.11(A) F4 (1 year firearm specification) (1 year firearmspecification) (1 year firearm specification); *

COUNT 5: POSSESSION OF COCAINE (less than 5grams-other than crack) -2925.11(A) F5 (1 year fireanrs specification) (1 year firearmspecification) (1 year frearm specification);

COUNT 6: POSSESSION OF HEROIN - 2925.11(A) F5 (1 year firearm specification)(1 year firearm speciftcation) (1 year firearm specification);

COUNT T: POSSESSION OF COCAINE ( less than 5gramsother than crack) -2925.11(A) F5 (1 year firearm specification) (1 year firearmspecification) (1 year firearm specification);

COUNT 8: POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA (200g but <1,000g) F5 (1 year firearmspecification) (1 year fireann specification) (1 year firearmspecification);

was on October 28, 2010, brought before the Court;

I

PAGE: 2CASE NO. 2009 CR 04069STATE VS. STEFOUN DERAY HUNTER

The Court hereby suspends the defendant's driver's license for a term of SIX (6)MONTHS. The suspension is to run concurrent wfth any other driver's license suspensionpresently serving. If the defendant does not possess a driver's license, the defendant shaii notapply for one for this period of time.

WHEREFORE, it is the JUDGMENT and SENTENCE of the Court that the defendantherein be delivered to the CORRECTIONAL RECEPTION CENTER there to be imprisoned andconfined for a term of

COUNT 1: THREE (3) YEARS;COUNT 2: ONE (1) YEAR;COUNT 3: ONE (1) YEAR;COUNT 4: EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS;COUNTS: SIX (6) MONTHS;_ U ONE (1) YEAR;

^G^'p. ONE(1)YEAR;

COUNT 8: ONE (1) YEAR;

The sentences in Counts 2, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 8 are to be served CONCURRENT tothe sentence imposed in Count 1;

The Court hereby merges the FIFTEEN One (1) year fireann specifications in Counts4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 into ONE One (1) year firearm specification an additional term of ONE (1)year ACTUAL INCARCERATION on the Firearm Specification, which shall be servedCONSECUTIVELY to and prior to the definite term of imprisonment;

Courts.

TOTAL SENTENCE: FOUR (4) YEARS.

Court costs to be paid in fuil in the amount determined by the Montgomery County Clerk of

The number of days for which the defendant should receive jail time credit is indicated inthe entry and warrant to transport filed in this case.

The Court disapproves of the defendants placement in a program of shock incarcerationunder Section 5120.031 of the Revised Code, or in the intensive program prison under Section5120.032 of the Revised Code, and disapproves the transfer of the defendant to transifionafcontrol under Section 2967.26 of the Revised Code.

The Court notifies the defendant that, as a part of this sentence, on COUNT 1; HAVINGWEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY (prior drug conv) - 2923.13(A)(3) F3 the defendant may, if theParole Board determines that a period of Post Release Control is necessary for the defendant, besupervised by the Parole Board for a period of THREE years Post-Release Control after thedefendant's release from imprisonment.

^,^^


The Court notifies the defendant that, as a part of this sentence, on COUNT 2: HAVINGWEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY (prior drug conv) - 2923.13(A)(3) F3 the defendant may, if theParole Board determines that a period of Post Release Control is necessary for the defendant, besupenrised by the Parole Board for a period of THREE years Post-Release Control after thedefendant's release from imprisonment.

The Court notities the defendant that, as a part of this sentence, on COUNT 3:POSSESSION OF COCAINE (5g but <25g-ather than crack) - 2925.11(A) F4 the defendantmay, if the Parole Board determines that a period of Post Release Control is necessary for thedefendant, be supervised by the Parole Board for a period of THREE years Post-Release Controlafter the defendant's release from imprisonment.

The Court notifies the defendant that, as a part of this sentence, on COUNT 4:POSSESSION OF COCAINE (5g but <25g-other than crack) - 2925.11(A) F4 the defendantmay, if the Parole Board determines that a period of Post Release Control is necessary for thedefendant, be supervised by the Parole Board for a period of THREE years Post-Release Controlafter the defendant's release from imprisonment.

The Court notifies the defendant that, as a part of this sentence, on COUNT 5:POSSESSION OF COCAINE (less than 5grams-other than crack) - 2925.11(A) F5 thedefendant may, if the Parole Board determines that a period of Post Release Control is necessaryfor the defendant, be supervised by the Parole Board for a period of THREE years Post-ReleaseControl after the defendant's release from imprisonment.

The Court notifies the defendant that, as a part of this sentence, on COUNT 6:POSSESSION OF HEROIN - 2925.11(A) F5 the defendant may, ff the Parole Board determinesthat a period of Post Release Control is necessary for the defendant, be supervised by the ParoteBoard for a period of THREE years Post-Release Control after the defendant's release fromimprisonment.

The Court notifies the defendant that, as a part of this sentence, on COUNT 7:POSSESSION OF COCAINE (less than 5grams-other than crack) - 2925.11(A) F5 thedefendant may, if the Parole Board determines that a period of Post Release Control is necessaryfor the defendant, be supervised by the Parole Board for a period of THREE years Post-Release'Control after the defendant's release from imprisonment.

The Court notifies the defendant that, as a part of this sentence, on COUNT 8:POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA (200g but <1,000g) F5 the defendant may, if the Parole Boarddetermines that a period of Post Release Control is necessary for the defendant, be supervised bythe Parole Board for a period of THREE years Post-Release Control after the defendant's releasefrom imprisonment.

^. 1'o


Should the defendant violate any post-release control sanction or any law, the aduft paroleboard may impose a more restrictive sanction. The parole board may increase the length of thepost-release control. The parole board also could impose up to an additional nine (9) monthsprison term for each violation for a total of up to fifty percent (50%) of the original sentenceimposed by the court. If the violation of the sanction is a felony, in addition to being prosecutedand sentenced for the new felony, the defendant may receive. from the court a prison term for theviolation of the post-release control itself.

Pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(3)(f), the defendant is ordered not to ingest or be injectedwfth a drug of abuse. The defendant is ordered to submit to random drug tes6ng as provided insection 341.26, 753.33, or 5120.63 of the Revised Code. The results of the drug testadministered shall indicate that the defendant did not ingest and was not injected with a drug ofabuse.

The Court did fully explain to the defendant his appellate rights and the defendant informedthe Court that said rights were understood.

BOND IS RELEASED.

JUDGE JO . SCHMITT FORJUDGE MA WtBEMAN

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR.PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

By: / Y tMARGARET M. CARPER 0051625Assistant Prosecufing Aftorney

Defense Counsel: ANTHONY S. VANNOY, 130 VUEST SECOND STREET, SUITE 1600,DAYTON, OH 45402Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, Attn: Jail RecordsMontgomery County Clerk of Courts - Bookkeeping Dept.

krnt - 11 /30f201 Q

^^ it

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 24350

v. Trial Court Case No. 09-CR-4069/2

STEFOUN D. HUNTER (Criminal Appeal fromCommon Pleas Court)

Defendant-AppellantFINAL ENTRY

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on the 9th day

of December , 2011, defendant-appellant Stefoun Hunter's convictions and sentence

for Possession of Cocaine, Possession of Heroin, and Possession of Marihuana, without the

firearm specifications, are Affirmed; his firearm specifications and his convictions for Having

Weapons Under a Disability are Reversed; and this cause is Remanded for further

proceedings consistent with the opinion. Should the trial court, on remand, deny the motion

to suppress the evidence of the firearms, it may re-enter a judgment of conviction and

sentence on the Having Weapons Under a Disability offenses and the firearm specificatiohs

to the drug offenses.

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

^^^^^ ^^fmC^^ T5

Costs to be paid as stated as follows: 50% by appellant, and 50% by appellee.

Copies mailed to:

mq^^^ <3 ^-MIKE FAIN, Judge

Mathias H. Heck, Jr.Johnna M. ShiaMontgomery County Prosecutor's OfficeP.O. Box 972Dayton, OH 45422

Enrique G. Rivera-CerezoP.O. Box 734Dayton, OH 45419

Hon. Mary L. WisemanMontgomery County Common Pleas Court41 N. Perry StreetDayton, OH 45422

-0 _c, Pct5 eeITHE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff-Appe4lee Appellate Case No. 24350

V. : Trial Court Case No. 09-CR-4069/2

STEFOUN D. HUNTER : (Criminal Appeal fromCommon Pleas Court)

Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

Rendered on the 9`" day of December, 2011.

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by JOHNNA M. SHIA, Atty. Reg. #0067685, Montgomery CountyProsecutor's Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box 972,301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

ENRIQUE G. RIVERA-CEREZO, Atty. Reg. #0085053, Post Office Box 734, Dayton, Ohio45419

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

FAIN, J.

Defendant-appellant Stefoun D. Hunter appeals from his three convictions for

Having Weapons Under Disability, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3);

three convictions for Possession of Cocaine, one fourth- and two fifth-degree felonies, in

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOtA` (1 V^^^ SECOND APPELLA'IE DISTRICT

violation of R.C. 2925.11(A); one conviction for Possession of Heroin, a fifth-degree felony,

in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A); and one conviction for Possession of Marijuana, a fifth-

degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.11 (C)(3)(c). The jury also found Hunter guilty of

firearm specifications with respect to each drug conviction; the firearm specifications were

all merged for sentencing purposes. Hunter was sentenced to four years in prison.

Hunter contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress

evidence obtained during the initial search of the residence.

We conclude that the police officers lawfully entered the residence without a

warrant, based upon anonymous 9-1-1 reports that a person was being held captive in the

residence, corroborated by the occupants of the residence ignoring the responding police

officers' repeated attempts to gain their attention and, after finally answering the door,

immediately attempting to close the door.

But we also conclude that the trial court's finding that weapons found in the home

were found in plain view during a lawful search for persons is predicated upon a mistake

of fact that we cannot find to have been harmless. The trial court found that the weapons

were found under a bed where a victim might have been; in fact, the weapons were found

between the bed's box springs and mattress. Accordingly, Hunter's convictions for Having

Weapons Under a Disability and his conviction for firearm specifications with respect to his

-V other convictions are Reversed; his convictions for Possession of Cocaine, Heroin, and

Marijuana are Affirmed; and this cause is Remanded for re-determination of the

suppression motion with respect to the weapons. if the trial court should again deny the

motion to suppress, it may re-enter the judgment of conviction with respect to the weapons

offenses.

^lH,C, I^ctj

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

i

I n early December2009, a caller reported hearing six gunshots immediately followed

by three men running into 5150 Northcutt Place in north Dayton, Ohio. The call was placed

to the Montgomery County Sheriffs Office 9-1-1 Dispatch Center. The call was received

from a cell phone that was either not activated or out of minutes; consequently, there was

no way to trace the call. The caller refused to give a name. The call was received at 6:51

p.m.

Four minutes later, Deputy Sheriff Walt Steele and his partner, Deputy Sheriff Kyle

Biryani, were dispatched and arrived at the scene at 7:00 p.m. Deputy Sheriff Anthony

Hutson, Herb Thornton, and Fred Zollers were also dispatched as back-up.

Deputy Hutson and his reserve partner were the first on the scene. When they

arrived, the front door was closed and there was a light on inside the residence. Deputy

Hutson positioned his partner at the front door as he went to the rear door because that is

where the three men had supposedly run into the residence. Deputy Hutson knocked at

the rear door between fifteen and twenty times. Individuals inside the residence, instead

of answering the door, responded by turning up the volume on either a television or radio.

Deputy Hutson continued to knock on the rear door. Shortly thereafter, Deputy Thornton

joined him.

Then, at7:11 p.m., another9-1-1 callfrom a deactivated ordepleted-minutes phone

came into the Montgomery County Sheriffs 9-1-1 Dispatch Center. There was no

indication given to the Dispatch Officer that it was the same person who made the initial

report. The caller identified himself as "Shawn Parker" and gave a personal cell-phone

number, but explained that it was "not in service." Parker stated that he had received a text

O,G^pctj Q[7THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO


message from his son that the individuals inside the residence had tried to rob him and that

he was being held against his will in a closet upstairs, where he could see the police

officers. After this information was relayed to officers at the scene, Deputy Hutson noticed

someone looking out a window, rapidly pulling their head back inside the window, and

abruptly closing the window. Deputy Hutson continued to knock at the rear door, louder

in order to overpower the increased volume of either the television or radio. Meanwhile,

Deputy Zollers began to evacuate the surrounding residences.

At about 7:30 p.m., a man opened the rear door. Deputy Hutson, with his weapon

drawn, began to explain why he was knocking; before he could complete his explanation,

the man abruptly began to close the door. Deputies Hutson and Thornton forced their way

into the apartment. Deputy Thornton began securing the man who answered the door.

Deputy Hutson continued into the residence and found six men sifting on a coach and

another man in the stairwell. Other deputies also entered the residence and secured both

the man in the stairwell and another man from upstairs. No hostages or firearms were

found in the initial search, but marijuana and a flak jacket were found in plain view in the

residence. During a second search, a sergeant found a shotgun rifle and several hand

guns between a mattress and a box spring while searching for the reported captive

underneath a bed.

A search warrant was then obtained, leading to the discovery of additional evidence.

Hunter was arrested and charged by indictment with three Possession of Cocaine

offenses, one Possession of Heroin offense, one Possession of Marijuana offense, and

three Having Weapons Under a Disability offenses. The drug charges all included firearm

specifications.

J+vC , fo5e.2(^THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO


Hunter moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the residence, contending

that it was obtained as the result of an unlawful search and seizure. Following a hearing,

his motion was denied.

Following a jury trial, Hunter was convicted of all charges and specifications, and

was sentenced accordingly. From his conviction and sentence, Hunter appeals.

11

Hunter's sole assignment of error is as follows:

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT WHEN

IT IMPROPERLY DENIED THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BYARTICLE I, SECTION XIV

OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTIONAND THE FOURTHAND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS

OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION."

A - The Warrantless Entry Into the Residence

Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant are per se unreasonable and illegal

in the absence of an exception to the warrant requirement. Katz v. United States (1967),

389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed.2d 576; State v. Cosby (2008), 177 Ohio App.3d

670, 2008-Ohio-3862. The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized seven exceptions

including the "presence of exigent circumstances." State v. Price (1999), 134 Ohio App.

3d 464, 467. An exigent circumstance exists when it is necessary to protect or preserve

life, or to prevent loss of evidence, or a danger to officer safety exists. State v. Sharpe

(2008), 174 Ohio App.3d 498, 2008-Ohio-267. An officer must present a reasonable,

^ .C-a Fo5 e .alTHE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO


articulable basis along with rational inferences generally associated with probable cause

in order to qualify for the emergency exception. State v. White (2008), 175 Ohio App.3d

302, 2008-Ohio-657; See State v. Applegate (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 348, 350. Absentthese

exigent circumstances, officers are barred from entering one's home to perform a search.

Payton v. New York (1980), 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L. Ed.2d 639. "At a

suppression hearing, the state bears the burden of proving that a warrantles search or

seizure meets Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness." Maumee v. Weisner

(1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 295, 297.

We agree with Hunter that the Dispatch Center received two anonymously made

phone calls. These two calls provided separate and distinct information regarding one

address and the occupants of the residence. The State's witness at the suppression

hearing testified that there was no way to determine whether these two calls were from the

same individual.

A hang-up 9-1-1 call creates a circumstance where a reasonable investigation can

be made. State v. Hodge, Montgomery App. No. 23694, 2011-Ohio-633. But a police

officer does not have probable cause to engage in a search based solely on ah anonymous

tip. Burchett, supra at 122.

Of course, merely knocking at a residence door does not violate the Fourth

Amendment after receiving any sort of tip. State v. Harris (2003), Montgomery App. No.

19479, 2003-Ohio-2519, ¶ 12. Nor does failure to volunteer that the person knocking is a

police officer render that conduct unreasonable or unlawful. State v. Barber, Montgomery

App. No. 19107, 2002-Ohio-3278, p. 3.

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

AFFIDAVITOF.VERITY

I, Mr. ,_^Stofoun D. Hunter, of the foregoin State Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition,

being duly cautioned of the penalty of pe.rjury, does aver and state that I have

read *_he contents of the foregoing action and further state that the contents,

allegations, facts, and all legal Montgomery Co., Trial Ct, and the (2nd)Dist.Ct,

of Appeals, Legal Documents attached hereto, are true and correct copies of the

Originals, and said Facts. Evidence, Allegations con*_ended are in fact true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

STATE OF OHIO )

))SS

COUNTY OF MADISON - ^ ^ V^ ^l ^ 1VV ^ÌrIXÎJ

AFFIM7'/Pro se

SWORN Ta AND SUBSCRIBED TO IN MY PRESENCE ON THISL'/bAY OF_/^^

OF20IL_,

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ` v NOTARY PUBLIC

SEAL

GILBEPubilc State o OhioNotary ires 1-9-2013^1y Commission ExpCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to s?rve as proof that all parties of the forAgoing

have bePn sPrvod a copy of the foregoing Petition for this Writ of Hab-

eas Corpus, action via Ordinary U.S. mail , on +hPa 1 day of FEBRUARYof 2012.

Mr.StAibun D. HuntArÂ638-789P?tit_ioner/Pro sA-L.O.C.I.,P.O.BOX69

LONDON-OHIO 43140-0069

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASMADISON COUNTY, OHIO

Mr. Stefoun D. Hunter,

Petitioner./pro sevs.

S+ate- of Ohio,Mrs.Deb Tianmerman CoopFar, Warden-

L.O.C.I.,Respondent

Case No.

AFFIDAVIT OF IPdDIGENCY

jzn:PETiTIONER, pro se

A-638-789INSTITUTION NUMBER

L.O.C.I.

INSTITUTION

P.O. HOX (69)

ADDRESS/PA. BOX NUMBER

LONDON-OHIO, 43140-0069

CITY, STATE & ZIP CODE

Svvorn to and subscribed in my presence this day

I, Kc.stefoun D. riunter#A638-789 , do hereby solemnly swear that I have

present(y this 2-5+Kday of F2 b OV'o,p" ® !2, no means of financial

support and no assets of any value and,,therefore, cannot afford to pay for any legal

services, fees or costs in the above-styled case.

GiLBERi A. HURWOt7GNotaryPublic, statô of Ohio

My Commission Expires 1-9-201,1

NOTARY PUBLIC

r."iUFCJIN THE COMMON PLEAS COUR'"^ ^ E," ,", r- ^ 5 0 0 U t^ T

MADISON COUNTY, OHIO

STEFOUN D. HUNTER,

Petitioner,

2a12MAR21 A1l: 41Case No. CVH 2012 0070

JUDGE ROBERT D.-NIE'E€O4$0!L

V. RESPONDENT WARDEN'S CIV: R:

DEBORAH TIMMERMAN-COOPER,WARDEN, LONDONCORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS /SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

Habeas corpus

Respondent.

Respondent London Correctional Institution (LOCI) Warden Deborah Timmerman-Cooper

moves this Court to issue an order dismissing Petitioner Stefoun D. Hunter's petition for a writ of

habeas corpus with prejudice. The petition does not meet statutory filing requirements and it does

not state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Petitioner is not incarcerated at LOCI and

Respondent does not have custody or control of Petitioner; so Respondent is not a proper party to

this suit and this Court lacks jurisdiction. Since Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and this matter should

be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6) and/or Civ. R. 56(C). A memorandum

supporting Respondent's motion is attached.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael DeWineOhio Attorney General

Maura O'Neill Jaite (0058524)Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralOhio Attomey General's OfficeCriminal Justice Section150 East Gay Street, 16th FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 644-7233 / (614) 728-9327 fax

P, a5

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Petitioner Hunter filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2725.

Hunter's habeas petition names London Correctional Institution (LOCI) Warden Deborah

Timmerman-Cooper as the respondent and requests release from LOCI, however, Ohio Department

of Rehabilitation & Correction (DRC) records show that Hunter is not currently incarcerated at

LOCI and he is not in the LOCI Warden's custody. On March 21, 2012, the Montgomery County

Common Pleas Courts issued a Removal Warrant in Case Number 2009 CR 04069/2 State v.

Stefoun Deray Hunter, which ordered the Montgomery County Sheriff to convey Hunter to the

Montgomery County Jail while further case proceedings are pending. The Montgomery County

Sheriff complied with the removal warrant's terms and on March 22, 2012, Hunter was released

from DRC's custody and transported from LOCI to the Montgomery County Jail. (Exhibit A)

A. The petition should be dismissed because it is moot and Petitioner's claimsare not cognizable in habeas proceedings.

State habeas corpus relief is a special statutory remedy and technical flaws and failure to

comply with statutory filing requirements are sufficient grounds to dismiss a habeas corpus petition.

R.C. 2725.03 states in pertinent part:

If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state *** correctionalinstitution, the location of which is fixed by statute and at the time is incustody of the officers of the institution, no court or judge other than thecourts or judges of the county in which the institution is located hasjurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas corpus for his productionor discharge. Any writ issued by a court or judge of another county to anofficer or person in charge at the institution to compel the production ordischarge of an inmate thereof is void.

The Ohio Supreme Court specifically found R.C. 2725.03 constitutional in Bridges v.

McMackin (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 135 and has conclusively ruled that a habeas petition must be filed

in the county where an inmate is incarcerated, otherwise the habeas petition is not properly filed and

V. ;L 6

the county court lacks jurisdiction to substantively review the inmate's claims. Brown v. Hall

(2009), 123 Ohio St. 3d 381; Goudlock v. Voorhies (2008), 119 Ohio St. 3d 398. Additionally,

under R.C. 2725.04(B), only the officer or person confming or restraining the prisoner is a proper

respondent in a habeas action.

In this case, Petitioner Hunter is currently incarcerated in the Montgomery County Jail,

which is under the Montgomery County Sheriff's control. Any future state custody is purely

speculative at this time and even if Hunter subsequently returns to DRC's custody in the fnture, that

custody would be dependent upon a court order which is not at issue in this habeas action. After

Hunter's release, the LOCI Warden was no longer a proper respondent based on R.C. 2725.04(B).

Once Hunter was released from LOCI on March 22,2012, this Court lost jurisdiction over his

petition pursuant to R.C. 2725.03 and this habeas action became moot.

Since this Court lacks jurisdiction to review his claims and the LOCI Warden is not a proper

respondent in this case, Hunter cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle him to relief in this

action. A Civ. R. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim challenges a complaint's

adequacy and the court must detemiine whether the complaint sets forth sufficient allegations to

make out the elements of a cause of action. In making its determination, the court must presume

that all factual allegations in the complaint are true and make all reasonable inferences in the

nonmoving party's favor. A complaint should be dismissed if it undoubtedly appears that the

plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle him to the requested relief. Vail v. Plain

Dealer Publishing Co. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 279; O'Brien v. University Community Tenants

Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242.

A motion for summary judgment may be used as a substitute for Civ. R. 12(B)(6) to

dismiss a claim upon which relief cannot be granted. Watkins v. Teater (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d

^J7

103. Civ. R. 56 (C) "specifically provides that before summary judgment may be granted, it must

be determined that * * *

(1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; ***

(2) The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and ***

(3) It appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to oneconclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the partyagainst whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion isadverse to the party."

Temple v. Wean United (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327. When Civ. R. 56(C) is used as a Civ. R.

12(B)(6) substitute, the court will not detemvne if there are facts in dispute, instead, the court will

determine if there is any set of facts that the plaintiff could prove that would entitle him to relief.

O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245. The summary

judgment motion will be granted if proof of the allegations in the complaint would still not entitle

plaintiff to recovery. Id.

R.C. 2725.04 allows an inmate to file a writ of habeas corpus, seeking relief from unlawful

custody or unlawful restraint of liberty. Habeas corpus will lie only to grant release from some type

of physical confinement, such as a prison. State ex rel. Smirnoffv. Green (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 165.

Petitions for habeas corpus should be dismissed as moot when the inmate has been released from

incarceration. Pewitt v. Lorain Correctional Institution (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 470.

In this case, even if all factual inferences are made in Hunter's favor, his habeas complaint

does not establish a cause of action. The only available remedy, release from the LOCI Warden's

custody is a moot issue and his habeas petition should be dismissed. No genuine issue of material

fact remains to be litigated and there is only one reasonable conclusion - Respondent is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.

V. a,q

Hunter's habeas petition should also be dismissed for procedural reasons. Technical flaws

and failure to comply with statutory filing requirements are sufficient grounds to dismiss a habeas

corpus petition. At issue are both the habeas corpus petition filing requirements set forth in R.C.

2725.04 and statutory requirements pertaining to civil suits filed by state inmates set forth in R.C.

Chapter 2969.

In the present case, the habeas corpus petition relief should be disniissed because Hunter did

not pay the requisite filing fee or properly request a fee waiver, Hunter did not file a sufficient prior

civil action affidavit and the petition does not comply with Civ. R. 10(A) because the caption does

not contain the parties' addresses.

B. The petition should be dismissed because Petitioner failed to payrequisite filing fees or alternatively file an indigency affidavit, assetdisclosure statement and certified inmate account statement.

R.C. 2969.22 requires state inmates to pay the full filing fees in virtually all civil actions and

appeals commenced in state court (other than the Court of Claims) and specifically states:

The clerk of the court in which a civil action or appeal is filed shall charge to theinmate either the total payment of the requisite fees that are described in section2303.20 of the Revised Code or that otherwise are applicable to actions or appealsfiled in that court or, if the inmate has submitted an affidavit of indigency, all fundsin the inmate account of that inmate in excess of ten dollars, and shall notify theinmate of the charge.

In order to obtain a waiver of the requirement to pre-pay filing fees, an inmate must comply with

R.C. 2969.25(C) and file an indigency affidavit, a fee-waiver request affidavit, an asset disclosure

statement and a certified inmate account statement.

These filing requirements apply to state habeas corpus actions and a habeas corpus petition

must be dismissed as improperly filed if the filing fee is not paid and delayed payment authorization

is not requested or supported by the specified documents. Belated attempts to file the required

documentation do not excuse noncompliance because R.C. 2969.22 and R.C. 2969.25(C) require

P. al9

that the fees, affidavits and statements be filed "with the complaint." Fuqua v. Williams (2003), 100

Ohio St.3d 211.

In the present case, Hunter has not paid the required filing fees in full, nor has he properly

requested a waiver of the pre-payment requirement. Although Hunter filed an indigency affidavit,

Hunter failed to file a fee-waiver request affidavit, an asset disclosure statement or a certified inmate

account statement. Since Hunter did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), the Petition should

therefore be dismissed because the action was not properly commenced.

C. The petition should be dismissed because Petitioner did not attach asufficient prior civil action affidavit.

R.C. 2969.25(A) states:

At the time that an inmate commences a civil action or appeal against agovenunent entity or employee, the inmate shall file with the court anaffidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civilaction that the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state orfederal court. The affidavit shall include all of the following for each ofthose civil actioris or appeals: (1) A brief description of the nature of the civilaction or appeal; (2) The case name, case number, and the court in which thecivil action or appeal was brought; (3) The name of each party to the civilaction or appeal;

R.C. 2969.25 applies to habeas corpus actions and a petition should be dismissed when there

is a fai.lure to comply with the statutory filing requirements. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole

Board (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 421. Belated attempts to file the required documentation do not

excuse noncompliance because R.C. 2969.25(A) requires the prior lawsuit affidavit to be filed "at

the time an inmate commences a civil action" and the document is necessary to evaluate whether

R.C. 2969.25(B) review is necessary.

In the present case, Hunter stated at page 7 of his pleading "N/A `Note,' the petitioner has

V.:3b

not filed any other civil actions anywhere in the past (5) years." Although Hunter purportedly

signed the page under a statement that reads "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is

true and correct," the statements are not notarized and do not constitute an affidavit.

D. The petition should be dismissed because it is not properly captioned.

Dismissal is also warranted because Hunter's habeas corpus petition is not properly

captioned in accordance with Ohio Civ. P. 10(A). The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a habeas

petition is defective and subject to dismissal if it does not comply with Civ. R. 10(A) and does not

include the parties' addresses. State ex rel. Sherrills v. State, 91 Ohio St.3d 133 (2001).

III. CONCLUSION

Respondent moves this Court to grant Respondent's motion and to dismiss Hunter's habeas

corpus petition with prejudice and costs taxed to Hunter. The habeas corpus petition should be

dismissed with prejudice because Hunter filed the petition in the wrong county and this court lacks

jurisdiction to review Hunter's claim on their merits. Furthermore, Hunter is not in the LOCI

Warden's custody, so she is not a proper respondent in this action.

The habeas petition should also be dismissed on procedural filing grounds. Hunter's habeas

corpus petition is procedurally defective because Hunter did not pay the filing fee in full and/or

properly request a fee waiver, Hunter did not include a proper prior civil action affidavit, and the

petition does not comply with Civ. R. 10 and contain the parties' addresses.

Undoubtedly, Hunter cannot prove supporting facts that will entitle him to relief and

Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, so this petition should be dismissed pursuant

to Civ. R. 12(B)(6).

Pe 31

Alternatively, there is no genuine issue of material fact; the only reasonable conclusion is

that Hunter is not entitled to relief from Respondent and Respondent is entitled to judgment as a

mater of law, so the petition should be dismissed pursuant to Civ. R. 56(C).

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael DeWineOhio Attomey General

Maura O'Neill Jaite (0058524)Senior Assistant Attomey GeneralCriminal Justice Section150 East Gay Street, 16th FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 644-7233(614) 728-9327 faxmaura.jaite ohioattorneygeneral.govRespondent's Attorney


On March 26, 2012, a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss /Sununary Judgment

Motion was served by ordinary U.S. mail postage pre-paid to Stefoun D. Hunter, Montgomery

County Jail, 345 W. Second Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422.

Maura O'Neill JaiteSenior Assistant Attomey General

^',^^

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

RELEASE NOTICEpate:0 312 2/20 1 2To:

ALL DEPARTMENTS

institutlon:LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

From:RECORD OFFICE

Please dress and arrange the nnnate(s) listed beIow, for departure on 03/22/2012

Please forward all records related to each inmate to the Records Offce rvithin 48 hours after release.

Number

A-638789

Name

HUNTER, STEFOUN

Unii/DormAY2i128L

Adm. Date I Release Type & Special Instruotions

06f21/2009 AWL-APPEAL BOND

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

APPEAL2009CR0406912 (1f22)

WardenlQesignee Sfgnature:

Copy:

Cashiar Mail

Quartermaster Visiting

lnfumary I.D.®

RIB

Vault

x Unit File

® OPI

ORC 20&9 E (Rev.10101)

Printed from Onbase

Captain's Offioe. .. . g. CUUmt :Q£4ic,o .. 00peraEion Deputy q

Education ..^ Jo?s Co;an;;elor N Major'e Office q

® Investigator Rep-orc*, t3ffice ® Corosnanity Linkage q

® Recovery Service N Pre-R.elease [] q

^ Tcansys ut._ ^ Warden q

Entry S3uI]ding ^ Mental Health q

Cc+ntrol . . 0 3aliyport q

EXHIBIT

A

Record Ot^^ce ^'ile: Release CVI^.ecklistThis fornv is lo be completed a neEnLmmnof`3Q day,s• r,rior Yo ralease, and for all offenders going otv to coxrl.

Neqie; Num6e :

Out to Courts; ^1, Cheok IN RA for transfer, document Cannty Case # rt Hearing Type2*P 14,r Time

f5 2. Review for outstand g detainers.and d.^signate o rOTC Form DRC2019 copy of Detainer given totraosporting agency (manual section 6) 4q\^^

0"3. CJteck'for CON and conlact Viclsm Services (manual section 11)Cv rtET 4. If going out to court for SS/.Itt, ensure that the offender is not incarcerated on additional cases, call BOSC

for return instrttctiens prior to release on AWL (n-8,nual sectiou 11) Does inmate need returned Yes5. Screen for DNA(manual section 11) -"^ô

9^6. Check STATJ to ensure offender ftas not been out to court/video conFerence for added charges, arld fcr anyitnportant notqs regardingNotify Detainers etc.^7---

Ef 7. Check CERTN'for any important notes rN C>-,Q- 8. Make STATI rnove after pickup, scan documents i,ita Onlsase if applicable

neleSsl.'s: Signatm°r^ Date

C_l I, Verify that the release date is certified in Dotsporcai Cl:lirlq 2. Ensure the certified n:lease date corresponds to the ourr:at release date or cfm be jusrlfted thrcngh the

application ofeamedcreclit (CERT1, PF;OLI; UTF,:C1, ECDIS and inanual section 4)q 3. Clteck STAT[ to ensure of1'ender has not been cut'.o court/Video Conference for added Charges or released

sinee certification of release date and fo)• any itr:p.;ttant notesq 4. Check CERTN for apy important notes =` • .q S. Screen for DNA, H8180, S135; and updjite+I13180; s4reiri and Offender',tJatell (Sex Offender Registration

Policy 07-ORD-07)q 6. Review PSI for warrants and contaet at::;ney(s) onoutstanding detainers and notitiesq 7. Has file been assessed for PRC, Is PRCr'Pardle/IYi''pacM.et done and in file?

Has certificate been received? Check CCIN,.\d/C61N DR.q 8. Contaot Mental I°lea.lth for Duty to'Warii', Checlc FJ'TW 5creenq 9. Check for CON and contaat Victim Services on a?l iceently rnodified releaso dates (manual section 11)

q 10. LEADS Clleck

3SNSignnkn'e ^ Date

Complete #11 & 12 after receipt of TC cert!fie-atcq 11. If'1'C eusure TC veto letters laave been sent on all^cases, flie Judge(s) have apptroved or the 35-day waiting

period has expired (manual seetion 5 & CONDR)q 12. If TC ensure tite inmate has no mor-e tHt'n 180 daj lo serve (manual section 5)

Day of Release:

Signature

13. Ensure affonder has not heen attt to cer:rt/Vidsc c*nference ar released since 30-day checkq 14. Check CERf I & PROLl for citrrerir mei:::we date ^ I?{E:tir'r & CtjNf?R for Siop Letter

q 15. LEADSIE-Sorn, Detainer/Notifvq 16. Cheek RPLAN and htmate Peisontti Prc;aery

DRC2463 (Rev. 12111) 1 . ' ' . Signt,ture

Date

Date

Printed fromOnbase E

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

770 West Broad StraetColumbus, Ohio 43222

John R. %asich. Governor www.dre.ohio.gov Gary C. Mohr, Director

RECEIPT FOR INMATE OR INMATE'S RECORDRELEASED TO OTHER AUTHOftIMS

RECEIVED fromLondon Correctional Instdution

tnstitution

Ohio, the following JNMATE or IIIMATE'S RECORD.

Inmate NamcHUNTER, STEFOUN

ODRC NumberA-638789

CurrentReleyseDate:Ju122,2014

LONDON

City

The above named INIvIATE or INMATE'S RECORD is hereby RELEASED INTO THE CUSTODY Gf the

MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF 1 9372253483(Reeeiving Agency) (Receiving Agency Number)

pursuant to a 2009CR04069 forthe

(Removai Order Type aod Case Number)

(Court Action)

Retnarks: CONTACT LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PRIOR TO RELEASE

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: .î^ INMATE IS NOT TO BE RELEASED FROM YOUR

ii1R7SnT!`TION WCTHOUT FIRST CONTACTING 7H1S RECORD OFFICE (Phone -(740) 852-2454 )

to determine if this inmate has a detainer on fite with this depatvnent or if this imnate has been sentenced to

serve time from another jurisdiction. This inmate has not been provided with any notice of duty to register as asex offender, nor was a wants and wan•ants check completed in the LEADS system. NOTE: if returning inmate

to prison within 48 hours of the current release date (above), plme contact Record Office and report the

outcome of court actions that took place while in your custody.

Rdeased By

^LSiFELL^• î^ ^TIeB

e^nVDare

DRC 2019 n(Rev 1207011) Original -MasterF'ite DisbibuGon - Sheriff; Court

Printed from Onbase US

2012P1?lR 24 `f'm t

CL ci: ui +;t;ri'siSIN THE L'Î'ÎÎC4^16ff?L>iASCQQ(URT OF MONTG.,OMERY COUNTY, OHIO

GRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF OHIO CASE NO. 2009 CR 04069102

Plaintiff JUDt3)r MARY L: W1SERftAN

Vs.I . I , ENTRY & ORDER

b,=a

S_6

TEFOUN DERAY HUNTER WARRANT FOR REMOVAL o p tSInmate #: A638789

S

„•^^ i^

Defendant +n^

TO THE SHERIFF OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIOGRErzTINGS:

You are commanded to have the body of STEFOUN DERAY HUNTER, who isincarcerated at LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 1580 SR 56, LONDON, OHiO,.

conveyed under safe and secure conduct to the Montgomery County Jail and there be brought

before this Court for REMAND FROM COURT OF APPEALS. The defendant has been

indicted for the offenses of HAVING WEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY ( prior drug conv) F3,

HAVING WEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY(priar drug conv) F3, HAVING WEAPONS UNDER

piSABILITY (prior drug conv) F3, POSSESSIION OF COCAINE (5 grams but less than 25

grams-other than crack) F4, POSSESSION OF COCAiNE (iass than 5 grams-other than

crack cocaine) F5, POSSESSION OF HEROIN F5, POSSESSION OF COCAINE (less than I

gram-crack cocaine) F5, POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA (200 grams but less than 1000

grams) F5. .

The defendant's first hearing in this case is scheduled before this Court on MARCH 29,

2012 AT 9:45 A.M.

DEFENDANT IS TO REMAIN AT THE, tVIONTGOMERY CDUNTY JAIL UNTIL

PROCE9q1NGS IN TRtAL COURT AREZiVER.

Tax as costs.

.lUDGE M L. UUISEMA14 herehy certiEy this to be a trft

Assistant Prosecuting Aftomey: MARGARET M. CAC+.PER

MCSO - Kim Holbrook

PSc3f2i/12

Printed from Onbase

and carrect ccpy.Vditness niMAR Lanfil is ry' -

day of

A^'j -Cierk

6/^

Cit:ris of Cammr PiassCourto^ ntgcr^te^ ^^ 1ry hio

BY iiepuLy

Montgomery County S' ;-iff Phil Plummer - Persons L' ustody Page I of 2

Montgomery County Sheriff Phil Plummer - Persons In Custody

Search by Last NameA•B•C•D•E•F•G•H•I•7•K•L•M•N•O•P•Q•R•S•T•U•V•W•X•Y•Z

HUNTER, STEFOUN DERAY*** Held in custody by MONT-JAIL at MONTGOMERY COUNTY JAIL ***

IdentifyingInformation

Race BLACK

Gender MALEDOB 12/22/1981

SSN aHair BLACKEye BROWNHeight 5'07"Weight 185Source MONT-JAIL:

1205789Imported: 3/22/2012Updated: 3/26/2012

Alert Information

In Custody 8 Yes

Booking Information Arrest Information

Agency: MONT-JAIL Arrest Date: 3/22/2012 12:40 PM

Booking Date: 3/22/20 12 2:16 PM Agency: MONT COUNTY SHERIFF

Booking 1205789 Location: LOCI

Number: Officer: ORIHOOD,STEPHEN C JR

* Bonds/Bails listed below may not include the bail surcharge mandated by Ohio House Bill 1 and/or court costs whictdue at the time the prisoner is released from custody. These fees may be as much as $85 per bond.

DISP NE# COURT CASE NUMBER

CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE)UDGE

BAILTYPE

BAILAMOUNT

DISPOSITION DATEDESCRIPTION DEGREE STATUS DA

1 MONT- Q MUST RETURN FS DETAINER *Not *Not 0 *Not Entered*

OUT LOCI OTHER Entered* Entered*COUNTY

2 MONT- 2009CR04069/2 HAVING F3 WAITING WISEMAN *Not 0 *Not Entered* 03/CPC WEAPONS COURT Entered* 08:

WHILE CTION AM


WHILE ACTION AM


WHILE CTION AM

5 MONT- 2009CR04069/2 POSSESSION F4 WAITING WISEMAN *Not 0 *Not Entered* 03/CPC OF COCAIN COURT Entered* 08:

ACTION AM

6 MONT- 2009CR04069/2 POSSESSION F4 WAITING WISEMAN *Not 0 *Not Entered* 03/CPC OF COCAIN COURT Entered* 08:

ACTION AM

7 MONT- 2009CR04069/2 POSSESSION F5 WAITING WISEMAN *Not 0 *NotEntered* 03/CPC OF HEROIN COURT Entered* 08:

ACTION AM

8 MONT- 2009CR04069/2 POSSESSION FS WAITING WISEMAN *Not 0 *Not Entered* 03/CPC OF MARIJU COURT Entered* 08:

CTION AM

,3'7http://www.mont.miamivalleyj ails.orgiJAILBOOKING.ASPX?C... 3/26/20I2

CERTIFICATION

CASE NCNpp I^^^ NAME: L)-5j'tYI^^v9an

THE FOLLOWING:

WAS ISSUED TO THE FOLLOWING:

, f C PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT

PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYr n

DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY /?C

OTHER ATTORNEY

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

SHERIFF

5;-OURT ADMINISTRATOR

PROBATION DEPARTMENT

CSEA

RACHEL PRICE

®THER

RW I NOTES BOOK SCL

0

A...PERSONAL SERVICE B.._CERTIFIED MAII. C...REGULAR MAIL SERVICE

D...POCKET'S IN CLERKS OFFICE E...PERSONALLY HANDING F...FAX

CERTIFICATION $1.00 POSTAGE COST $ /_^ 3

DEPUTY CLERK

F,3$

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MADISON COUNTY, OHIO

, Plaintiff, :

-vs- : No. N14 0.7U %c20U7 n

^^//( Î^lf^Ylt34yltQyt - ,Defendant.:

To Renae Zabloudil, Clerk of Court:

Entry in the above case:

pages $3.00 each,

C:) r'Im> `."J

-

69^ pages $ 2.00 each $

Total $

!.( 31'^-

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MADISON COUNTY, OHIO

Stefoun D, Hunter,

-vs-

Petitioner,

Deborah Timmerman-Cooper, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. CVH 201200,0Ne

'^-ro

n

oa^

Petitioner is given leave of ten (10) days to establish that he is imprisoned in

London Correctional Institution or his petition will be dismissed without further notice.

So Ordered.

ENTER: Apri19, 2012

JUDGE

cc: Maura O'Neill JaiteStefoun D. HunterCourt Administrator

Offender Details

Ohio Depaitment of Rehabilitation and Correction Offender Search Detail-

^ =^k1ar_h EEL:i.

[No Menu inside the Offeuder Search.


Number: s16387dg

DOB: 12/22/1981

Gender: Afatr.

Race: 7aack

Adm' ' Dt• n,ò5J2c;to

Institution: London tarreetional Tnstitution

Status: INCARCERATED

4_1CfYlhaay,j? S)îo Rrvised {tMEe

Offense 7nformation[WEAPON UNDER DISABILITY Counts: a

CornmittlngCoonty:RIDP}'1MSSfRY AdmissionDate:v/.z,/2oiq

.,..._-....____ ....,.---.._^ ................_^....... _"....,....^ .......---^^..........^_......-...

WEAPON UlYDER DISABILITY C'ounts12

CommBtingCormty: SSON7Y70-M3i.RY Admisaion Date: xi/o5Janio

:3 Ycars

O?/2Y/201q

POSS.OFDRUGS Cormts:i 0R02,925.114

CommittingCounty: MOYPGQ6iERY Admission Date: 111%(2o eo Degree of Felony: Fmsrth

PO6S. OF DRUGS Counts: r

ConllnittingCounty:MU3P1G0°sIlEtIY AdmissionDate:ll/e`dl'xOto

POSS. OF DRUGS

Committing Coonty: NS9,NTG0hSERY

I

Stated Prison Tetan:Fa ' t Stated Term:

11 i' 8

'PISe alwve irzforroation may not eontai

'11:a, si:pravision perloci usay not mincide

^31Fflt1pR°J Wnfle33li

Office.:Yddreases at'esvaiial;

Admission Date: tiJojj.à

O

ORC: 29zgs3 4

Degree of Felony:'ChV:d

ORC: 2923.13 4Degree of Felony:'rldnf

ORC: 292nt ¢

Degree of Felony: FiRi,

Covuts:3 ORC:29^Tatq

Degree of Felony: Fiffti

Sentenee Information

Notes

5uf- ^f P, 37--(,http://www.dre.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search.aspx

Page 1 of I

r¢i.

itlm Uilb

4/13/2012

,t, ^ i a ^ ^^ C°(\P .,^ L 1^^^^^^^ 4e,&eV

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MADISON COUNTY, OHIO AT LONDON

Mr. Stefoun D. Hunter, Case #CVH 20120070

Petitioner/Pro se

-vs-

Deborah T. Cooper,Warden,

Respondent.

Hon. Judge,Robert D. Nichols

Inre: Motion to Strike, putsuant

to Civ. R. (12TFF). '

MOTION TO STRIKE

^

e,a^

-0^D

^

Now comes the Petitioner Mr. Stefoun D. Hunter, as afore, and in Pro se

fashion, and Respectfully moves this Most Honorable Madison County Comm. P.1Eas

Court, for an Order STRIKING FROM THE RECORD the Respondent's Return of Writ,

for the reason that the same is to the petitioner's belief, SCANDALOUS,and also

constitutes that which by the definition of State Statutory law, that which is

a "CONSPIRACY and SHAM LEGAL PROCESS" being Felony offenses committed by the

Respondent and Her, Attorney, One. Maura O'neill Jaite, the Assistant Attorney

General, assigned to represent the Respondent hereof.

A Memorandum of Law, is accompanying this action and made a part of the same.

RFSPFI(TFULLY SUBMI7.'lED,


AT PAGE( ( )hereof.

^M 6_1Mr. S efoun D. Hunter#(A)639-789

Petitioner/Pro se

L.O.C.I., PO BOX(69)

London-Ohio 43140-0069

SUp. Gf, ^ . 40


Now before this Most Hon. Madison Co.,Ct., is the petitioner Mr. Stefoun D.

Hunter, and hereby, submits his Grounds and Causes for the relief now being sou-

ght via virtue of this instant Motion to Strike.

17 #(1), First and Foremost, the petitioner hereof, would state that he is in deep

appreciation of this instant Ct's, consideration of the foregoing pleading, and I,

the petitioner hereof, would respectfully ask this instant Ct., to TAKE JUDICIAL

NOTICE, of the following facts and assertions hereby raised by the petitioner in

this instant action. I further ask that this instant Ct., of the case at bar, take

the required steps in which to see to it that JUSTICE is Served and that if it is

determined by virtue of the facts and Eviden<;e supporting this action by this inst-

ant Ct., that criminal acts have in fact been committed by the Respondent and her

Counsel of Record, One. Maura O'Neill Jaite, the Assist. Attry. General, for the

Respondent hereof, that the U.S. Attorney's Office, is Notified of the same, that

said U.S. Attry's Office, can make the lawful determination as to whether or not

a Criminal Investigation and or Criminal charges should be bought against the Re-

spondent and her Counsel, as mentioned above for the violation of State Statutory

Law,Notwithstanding, for the violation of the petitioner's State & Federal Constit-

utional Rights.For criminal acts committed while in Office and in their Official

Capacities.

Suf . C+9 P, q l P.(z)

17 # (2), The petitioner hereof, would state that he believes that the

following acts committed by the Respondent and her Counsel of record, are of

a Highly Prejudicial nature inflicted upon the petitioner in an combined eff-

ort committed by the above State Officials, "RESPONDENTS" to illegally and un-

constitutionally Deprive the petitioner of the Habeas Corpus relief, in which

he is by law, clearly entitled to according to the applicable State Statutory

Laws relevant to the case at bar.

11 #(3), The petitioner hereof, had cause to file his State Writ of Habeas

Corpus Action, in the instant Madison Co., Court-house, on (Q3 /0;2- / I 2) and

the Clerk, thereof, did adhere to the Duties of that Office, according to the Hab-

eas Corpus Rules established via O.R.C. § 2725.01 et seq.

4#(4),The petitioner is afforded the benefits of § 2725.22, and § 2725.24,

§ 2725.22, pertains to FAILURE TO OBEY THE WRIT. and § 2725.24, pertains to the

fact that: the Prisoner SHALL NOT BE REMOVED from Custody of one officer to another.

SEE: page( 7 )hereof, regarding the same, for consideration by the instant Ct.

il #(5),While the above mentioned State Writ of Habeas Corpus action was act-

ively pending in this instant Cthse, the State of Ohio, the Respondent and her Coun-

selor, as aforementioned above, engaged in a Conspiracy and Sham Legal Process, to

obtain the Illegal, Unconstitutional,Malicious, Willful, Knowingly,Arbitiary dismis-

sal of the petitioner's State Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition, in clear violation of

O.R.C. § 2923.O1.dA.)C(l1VSPIRACS'. & O.R.C.§ 2921.52. et seq, Using sham legal process.

By virtue of the following Overt acts,On 03/20/12, the petitioner hereof, had cause

to submit a motion to the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, of Criminal Case #

2009-CR-4069/2, for a Conveyance or for TELEPHONIC and or VIDEO ATPEHIDAAICE, in conn-

p, ia P.(3)

P.(4)

ection to a pending criminal case that had been remanded back to the Montgomery

Co. Cthse, from the ( 2nd) District Ct. of Appeals. This was in connection to the

petitioner's inquiry for the case status, as the FIRST time in which the petitioner

had been returned to the Montgomery Co. Cthse, nothing had taken place in reference

to the case being remanded back thereto.

11 # (6), The petitioner as mentioned above, for the Second Time, sought to inqu-

ire as to the Status of the pending case at Montgomery Co.,with the Motion mentioned

above, SEE: said Motion at Page(i -y )hereof.Hoti,ever, contra to O.R.C. § 2725.22 & §

2725.24, the State of Ohio, the Assist. Attry. General, hereof, & the Warden, "Res'

pondent", had the petitioner hereof, removed from the Custody of Warden-OFFICER,Mrs.

Deb T. Cooper, the Respondent, to the Custody of the Montgomery Co., Sheriff, on

(03.22/12), WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMISSION OF THIS HABEAS CORPUS

COURT, OF THE INSTANT CASE AT BAR. IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF O.R.C. § ( 2725.22 & 2725.24).

ti # (7),See: the attached ENTRY & ORDER WARRANT FOR REMOVAL, issued by Judge,

MARY L. WISEMAN, hereof, at page( tg )& (cf ). a1so, See: the Documentation titled

Montgomery County Sberiff Phil Plummer-Person In Custoc]y Page ( 1) of (2), hereof at:

page( , C) ) & Also, See: the FABRICATED and Fraudulent "DEPARTMENT OF REHABI-at Pages ( {^- & t 3 ) hereof . ,

LITATION AND CORRECTION„ RE[.EASE NOTICE. Such Release Notice, Document was not issued

to the petitioner, the FIRST TIME in which he was taken to the Montgomery Co., jail.

in which to attend his First Ct., appearance, on (11 / a3 /lI )-

17 #(8),The Respondent and Her, Counselor, the Assist. ST., Attry. general,

Submitted to this Most Honorable Madison Co. Ct., their Motion to Dismiss and for

Summary Judgment, against the petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus Action, on (03/26/12)

alleging that the instant Ct., was without Subject matter Jurisdiction, all awhile

knowing full well that the instant Ct., did in fact retain Subject matter Jurisdict-

-ion. The respondent's Return to the petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus Petit-

ion for the foregoing reasons set forth herein above, should be STRICKEN from the

Record as a deliberate attempt to obtain the Illegal, Unconstitutional, Malicious,

Willful, Knowingly, Arbitrary Dismissal of the petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus

Petition, and as SCANDAIAUS MATTER Prejudicial towards the rights of the petitioner

and against the Administration of Justice, and in Clear violation of Civ. Rule (11-C)

being that of a BAD FAITH MOTION and bought in violation of the same.

11 #(9), In Conclusion, The petitioner herein, would state further that the

Respondent and Her, Attorney of Record, our Sworn Officers of the State of Ohio,

and has acted contrary to their Oaths of Offices, and contrary to State Statutory

Law, Knowingly and Willfully, and Maliciously as aforementioned herein above.

RELIEF SOUGHT.

The petitioner seeks the granting of the Writ as Filed and Demanded as he

truely understands and believes that he is entitled to the relief sought by law.

Shall it be written so Shall it by Law, be Done. Let JUSTICE REFLECT THE INTEGRITY

OF THE INSTANT MOST HONORABLE COURT OF THE CASE AT BAR.


flh,N - uodc,.Mr. Ste oun D. Hunter# A 638-789

Petitioner/Pro se

L.O.C.I.,PO BOX (69)

LONDON-OHIO 43140-0069

P.(5)

P. 4+


This is to serve as proof that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

was placed in the U.S. mail, on this-00ay of APRIL, of (2012)for deliv-

ery to all parties of the foregoing action, Namely the Respondent and Her,

Counselor, One. Maura O'Neill Jate #(0058524)Assist. ST. Attry. General.

A "^Mr.-St&oun D. Hunter4(A) 638-789

Petitioner/Pro se-AS AFORELISTED.

P.W

P. +S

§ 2725.22COURTS-GENERAL PROVISIONS 244

Text DiscussionReturn and contents of the vant. Ohio Crim. Prac. & Pro.

§ 44.501

Research Aids

Issuance of writ:O-Jur3d: Hab Corp § 45Am-Jur2d: Hab Corp § 170C.J.S.: Hab Corp § 187

West Key No. Reference

Hab Corp 81

§ 2725.22 Failure to obey writ.

No person to whom a writ of habeas corpus is directedshall neglect or refuse to obey or make return of itaccording to the command thereof, or make a falsereturn, or upon demand made by the prisoner, or by

any person on his behalf, refuse to deliver to the persondemanding, within six hours after demand therefor, atrue copy of the warrant of commitment and detainer

of the prisoner.Whoever violates this section shall forfeit to the party

aggrieved two hundred dollars for a first offense; for asecond offense such person shall forfeit four hundreddollars, and, if an officer, shall be incapable of holding

his office.HISTORY: RS § 5746; S&C 682; 29 v 164, § 4; CC § 12182;

Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10-1-5$.

Cruss-References to Related Sections

Recovery of forfeitures; limitations, RC § 2725.27.

Comparative Legislation

Return of writ or order to show cause.28 USC § 2243Evasion of service of writ.

CA-Penal Code § 1505FL-Stat Ann § 79.05[L-Comp Stat Ann ch 735 § 5/10-132KY-Rev Stat Ann § 419.090Ml-Comp Laws Ann §§ 600.4331, 600.4370

NY-Civ Prac Law § 7006PA-CSA tit 42 § 6505

Text Discussion

Return and contents oP the writ. Ohio Crim. Prac. & Pro.

§ 44.501

Research Aids

Execution and return oF writ:

O-Jur3d: Hab Corp § 48

Am-Jur2d: Hab Corp §§ 208, 209

C.J.S.: Hab Corp § 187

West Key No. Reference

Hab Corp 81

§ 2725.23 Persons at large upon writ not

to be again imprisoned.

A person who is set at large upon a writ of habeascorpus shall not be imprisoned again for the same of-fense, unless by the legal order or process of the courtin which he is bound by recognizance to appear, orother court having jurisdiction of the cause or offense.

No person shall knowingly, contrary to sections2725.01 to 2725.28, inclusive, of the Revised Code,recommit, imprison, or cause to be recommitted orimprisoned, for the same offense, or pretended offense,a person so set at large, or knowingly aid or assist

therein.Whoever violates this section shall forfeit to the party

aggrieved five hundred dollars, notwithstanding any col-

orable pretense or variation in the warrant or commit-

ment.HISTORY: RS § 5747; S&C 682; 29 v 164, § 6; GC § 12183;

Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10-1-53.

Cross-References to Related Sections

Recovery of forfeitures; limitations, RC § 2725.27.

Text Discussion

Hearing. Ohio Crim. Prac. & Pro. § 44.701

Research Aids

lmprisonment for same offense while at large upon writ.

O-Jur3d: Hab Corp § 61

ALRDischarge on habeas corpus of one held in extradition proceed-

ings as precluding subsequent extradition proceedings.

33 ALR3d 1443.

CASE NOTES AND OAG

1. (1953) The arrest of petitioner by virtue of an orderissued by the supenntendent of the girls' industrial school wascontrary to law when the order was issued and the arrest madeat a time when petitioner had been previously "set at' largeupon a writ' in an earber habeas corpus proceeding for thesame offense, and at the time of the second arrest was underan appearance bond returnable at a stated time: In re Kames,

67 OLA 449, 121 NE2d 156 (App),2. (1931) One released on habeas corpus from imprison-

ment for escape fram workhouse before sentence expired can-not be reimprisoned for escape before paying fine: Copelan

v. McHenry, 42 OApp 200, 181 NE 818.

§`j„^(`Z,Pj,`1.,4 Prisoner shall not be removed

from custody of one officer to another.

A person committed to prison, or in the custody.ofan officer for a criminal matter, shalt not be removedtherefrom into the custody of another officer, unlessby legal process, or unless the prisoner is delivered toan inferior officer to be taken to jail, or, by order ofthe proper court, is removed from one place to anotherwithin this state for trial, or in case of fire, infection,

or other necessity.A person who, after such commitment, makes, signs,

or countersigns a warrant for such removal contraryto this section shall forfeit to the party aggdeved fivehundred dollars.

HISTORY: RS 4 5748; S&C 683; 29 v 164, § 7; C,C § 12184;

Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10-1-53.

Cross-References to Related Sections

Persons at large upon writ not to be again imprisoned, RC

2725 23.Recovery of forfeitures; limitatlons, RC § 2725.27

2U12 t•fAR 21 I. 3c'

c'L Lr,.: ui crf:;r,rs ,. ..tN-THE 866UK 090QtAURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO ,

Plaintiff

CASE NO. 2009 CR 04069102

....'. >. E',;`JUDC,I;MARYVUISI:IYtAN'

ENTRYB ORDt~RFOR REMOVAL

STEFOUN DERAYHUNTER WARRANT

Inmate #: A638789

Defendant

TO THE SHERIFF OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIOGREETiNGS:

You are commanded to have the body of STEFOUN DERAY HUNTER, who isIncarcerated at LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 1580 SR 56, LONDON, OHIO..

conveyed under safe and.secure conduct to the Mcntgomery County Jail and there be broughtbefore this Court for REMAND FROM COURT. OF APPEILS, The defendant has beenindicted for the offenses of HAVING WEAPONS UNaER DISAgILITY ( prior drug conv) F3,

HAVING WEAPONS UNDER DISAHILITY {prlor drug conv) F3,. HAVING WEAPONS UNDER

DISABILITY (prior drug conv) F3, POSSPSSION:OF COCAINt: (5 grams but less than 26

grams-other than crack) F4, POSSESSION OF COCAfNE (less than 5 grama-other than

crack cocatne) F5, POSSPSION OF HEROIN FB,. POSSESSION OF COCAINE (less than I

gram-crack cocaine) FS, pOSSESSiON' OF MARIJUANA (200 grams but less than 1000

grams) F5. .

The defendant's first heanng In this case is scheduled before this Court on MARCH 29,^^..aw.,,.,.^..^ ..-^ ..^.2012AT9:46 A.M.

AEPE'NOANT lS TO REMAIN T THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY JAIL UN71L

p OCEt:DI S IN TRIAL COURT ARE.at/ER.

Tax as costs.

Assistant prosecuting Aftomey: MARGARET M. CARPERMCSO - Kim Holbrook

P8:3l2i1t2

CRIMINAL DIVISION..

. WIS04hereby certitp this to be a truLand cocrect ccpy.yffiess ray ^^his ryday af 4 :

^y ^ %w ^, CiArk

Cied; ef t;ommon PI2as

ByotkCiyeetCl ty hio

t" _-- Deputy

44`0~ANDCae^ Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. I^ .^. . ... . .. _ . . _

770 West Broad StraetColumbus, Obio 43222

lohnRKastoh. Oovernorwww.dre.o6l0.gov ... Oary C.Moh , Direotor

RECEIPT FOR INMATE OR INMATB'S RECORDRELEA3ED TO OTHERAUTHORIMS

RECElVEDfromLondonCorrettionallns[inrtlon

lnsntul-wn

Ohio, the followiag INMATE or IDIMATE'S RHCORD'.

IemeleNameHUNiER.5TEFOUN

ODRCNumberA-638789CurrcotRe4aseDale:Jul 22,2014

LONDONCity

The above named INMATE or [NMATE'S REC.ORD is hereby RELEASED INTO TRE CUSTODY of the

MONT6OMERY COUNTY SNHUFF 19372253483

pursuant to a

(Reeaiving Agqnm.y)

2009CR04069

parposes of APPEAL(Cuua Aaion)

Ramarks: CONTACT LONDON CORIIECitONAL IN511TUT1ON PRIOR TO RELEASE

forthe

SPTsCIAL TNSTRUCTIONS= Tb^ INNIATLIS TO B$ RRLFASi?D FROm voUR,[jl$ISD7Ct tU1V 3^[ I I.OI1T FiRST GONTACTLNG T11TS RECORD OFF[C& (Phone -(740) 852-2454 )

sentenced toto detertnine if tLis inmete has a dataina on file with tt++s depazhnent or tf thts mmete has been

resarve time from aaother Jurisdiction 7ttis inmate ltas not been Provided with any notice of duty to gister as a

retunting inmatesex offender, nor was a wmts and warrants check comPieted m the LEAD5 system NOTE: Ifto prison within 48 hours of ths cunent release date (above^ please contact Record Offce and report the

ouh:ome of court actions that took place while in your costody.

xdessed By

%.cz*yol. -̂ ^TWO

DMC

nRC20t9 E (Rev I7l1Ul i)

(ReceivmgAgencyNumber)

(g®o9at O+der'lype and CeseTlumber)

3/z,z/lZ.Original -Maeter File Distribution - Sheritl; Coutt

^^^

Montgomery County Sheriff Phil Plummer - Persons In Custody Page l of 2

Montgomery County Sheriff Phil Plummer - Persons In Custody

Search by Last NameA.B•C•D'E'F'G'H'I_3 .K,L.M.ry.O.P.Q.R.S.T.U.V.W.7(.Y.Z

HUNTER,STEFOUN DERAY*** Held in custody by MONT-JAIL at MONTGOMERY COUNTY JAIL ***

$m:. . -̂-j

Booking Information

IdentifyingInformationRace BLACKGender MALEDOB 12/22/1981

SSN 0Hair BLACK

Eye BROWN

Height 5'07"

Weight 185Source MONT-JAIL:

1205789imported: 3/22/2012Updated: 3/26/2012

Agency: MONT-JAIL

8ooking Date: 3/22/2012BookingNumber:

12057892:16 PM

Alert Information

In Custody il Yes

Arrest InformationArrest Date: 3/22/2012 12:40 PM

Agency: MONT COUNTY SHERIFF

Location: LOCI

'Ôfficer: ORIHOOD,STEPHEN C JR

* Bonds/Baiis listed below may not include the bail surcharge mandated by Ohio House Bill 1 and/or court costs whictd Th e fees may be as much as $85 per bond.est

7/ tN

due at the time the prisoner ie released from cus o y.DISP CQ

CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE UDGEBAIL BAIL DISPOSITION DATE

# COURT CASE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DEGREE STATUS YP£ AMOUN DA

1 MONT- () MUST RETURN FS DETAINE *Not *Not*

0 *Not Entered*

OUT LOCI OTHER Entered* Entered

COUNTY

2 MONT- 2009CR04069/2 HAVING F3 WAITING WISEMAN *Not*

0 *NotEntered* 03/

CPC WEAPONS COURT EnteredAM

3 MONT- 2009CR04069/2

WHILEHAVING F3

CTIONWAITING WISEMAN *Not

*0 *Not Entered* O$/

CPC WEAPONS COURT EnteredAM

2009CR04069/2

WHILEHAVING F3


0*NotEntered* 03/

4 ONT-MCPC WEAPONS COURT ntered*E

AM

5 MONT- 2009CR04069/2

WHILEPOSSESSION F4


*0 *Not Entered* 03/

08:CPC OF COCAIN COURT Entered

CTION

6 MONT- 2009CR04069/2 POSSESSION F4 AITING WISEMAN *Not 0 *NotEntered* 031

CPC OF COCAIN COURT _ Entered*AMCIION

7 MONT- 2009CR04069/2 POSSESSION F5 AITING WISEMAN *Not 0 *NotEntered* 03/08:

CPC OF HEROIN COURT Entered*

CTION

8- MONT- 2009CR04069/2 POSSESSION FS A[TING WISEMAN *Not*

0 *NotEntered* 03/08:

CPC OF MARIJU COURT EnteredAMCTION

5u^.C^, V• `^Ì„_-_ _n ,_.._rrA rr onnvn.rr'_ ACDV9!'' 12111</1T117

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

RELEASE NOTICEaimtlon:LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITtJT)ON

Please dress and arrange the inmate(s) tisfed below, for depardue on 03/2212012

Please forward all records related to each inmate to the Records Office within 48 hours after re(ease.

Number

A-638789

Name

HUNTER,STEFOUN

UniUDOrm Adm. Date Release Type & Special lnstnwtions

A/2/128L 06121/2009 I AWL-APPEAL BOND

R4ONTGOMERY COUNTY

APPEAL2009CR0406912 (1122)

I

WarderWealgneeS(gnature:

ii 4 '3i ^ 1qq-'k°C&4^0C-Copy:

Cashier ® Mail ^ Transport

Quartermaster ® Visiting ^ Entry Building

Intirniary I.D. .® Control .

RIB Captain's Office.. _o. Calm.t C)ffic.,

Vault ® Education Job Ccunselar

® Unit File ® Investigator , _ Re.corc'. Offiee

OPI Recovery Service Pre-Reiease

ORC 2083 E (Rev.10161)

0 Warden q

0 Mental Health q

® Sallyport q

® Operation Deputy q

0 Major's Office q

® Community Linkage q

0 q

5ta p, i1+P50 EXHIBIT

Printed fromOnbase m A

Record Office Fire: Release ChecklistThis fornr is to be completed a suninnon of 39 da}ss prior io rulease, andfor all offenders going ont ro cortrt.

tlnt tn Ciwrts:

,^` l, Check IN RA for transfe, docurYtent Connty ^Case #^(C(^^,`^ D Hearing Type

^-1 tl Time - tb'.C:Ck^. Date T_ff-2. Revtew for otttstand g detainers.attd designate on O'TC Form DRC2019 copy of Detainer given to

transporting agency (manual section 6) -Yti1e-4-.0-3. Check for CON and cuntact Victim Services (manual section I 1)tN

Pf 4. If going out to court for SSlJR, ensure that the offender is not incarcerated on additional cases, call BOSC

Wfor return instructions prior to release on AWL (manual section I I) Does inmate need retumed - Yes

5. Screen for DNA (manualsection 11) -f!tAo

6. Check STATJ to ensute offonder has not been out to court/video conference for added charges, and for anyimportant notgs regarding Notify Detainers eta r-e.,-.-

Ef 1. Check CERTN for any important notes +•% t'%-2" 8. Make STATI move affer pickup, scan docunients ltito Onlrase if applicable

Llie[eases:

.. , .,. ^ C: .. .• signat^' Datz

Q l. Ver'tfy that the release date is certified in Dotsporial CERTIq 2. Ensure the certified release date corresponds to thn current release date or can he jusdfied throngh the

application of eamed,credit (CERTI, PP,OL1; CrTfrC1, ECD1S and inanual section 4)

q 3. Clteck STATI to ensure offender has not been otit to courVVideo Conference for added Charges or reteasedsince certificatiou of release date and for any irr partaat notes .

Q 4. Check CERTN for any important notes: .q S. Screen for DNA, H13180, SBS, alld updnte-Hk3I 8C scrci nànd OtPender Watch (Sex Offender Registration

Policy 07-ORD-07)q 6. Review PSI for wartants and contactagency(s) on, outstanding de,tainers and notifies

q 7. Has file been assessed for PRC, Is PRClParolerI'C` packet done and in file?Has certificate been received? Check CCINIvUCONDR. .

q 8. Contact Mental 1-lealth for Dnty.to Warrr, Check•E;<'TW Screenq 9. Check for CON and contact Victim Services on all recently modified release dates (manual section t I)

q 10: LEADS Check .

SSNSignaturc Dina

Complete #11 & 12 after receipt of TC cert.ifrcate

q 11. If TC ensare TC veto letters have been sent on all-cases, tite 7udge(s) have approved or the 35-day waiting

period ltas expired (manual section 5 & CONDR)

q 12. If TC ensure tlte inmate has no more thnyt 180 days to srrve (manual section 5)

Day of Release:

Signature

[j 13. Ensure offender has not beenout to cocrtJVidea canference or reJeased since 30-day check

q 14. Check CEftf I & PROLI for cur'res7t relw^d9te 6a l'ila?FR1;Y C0T1pR fnr Stop Letter

q 15. LEADS/E-Sont, DetainerlNotifyq 16. Check RPLAN and InmatePersonal Pri;ikt:/

, _ ; . . .

DRC2463 (Rev. 12i11)

Printed from Onbase

Date

^`-^-$i¢q,,Uutl Datc

-.:"--^ 1,A^' (5

J^-5 K>vue"^)r+Wr / r2r r^^^ ^ ^^

^sIN TMON GoMxYO COUNTY, OHIO OF

Plaintiff,

vs.

Nir Stefoun D. Hunter.

Defendant.Pro sP

CIVIL DIVISION

* Case No.: 2009-CR-4069 2

Judge: Wiseman

* MOTION TO CONVEY OR* FOR TELEPHONIC AND/OR/ VIDEO ATTENDANCE

Mr. Stefoun D. Hunte^hereafter " Mr • Hunten>^ acting in propria persona ,Now comes

and hereby respectfully moves this Honorable Court to issue a warrant to convey to Deb Timmennan-

Cooper, Warden of the London Correctional Institution, 1580 St. Rt. 56 SW, London, Ohio 43140,-

TEL: 740.852.2454 directing her to permit the defendant to be present for the hearing scheduled

on unkno4ate ., However, in the altemative, due to transportation costs involved in, it

may be preferable, and in the interest of judicial economy, to peiznitthe defendant to be present

by telephone or video conference by calling the number listed above to make arrangements for such.

Respectfully,

rV

P.O. Box 69, A6.38-789London, Ohio 43i40-0069


This will certify that a true and correct copyofDefendant 's Motion was served upon the

Plaintiff or their Attomey: Mathis H . Heck"PROSF^îmnR" at the present

Ci VTOT' State ®HIO . ZipaddressPO BOX 472 tY nA_ 45422e

' 2via regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid this _1 -, day ofRepctfully Subnvtted,

Notaithstanding,The Warden of L.O.C.I., t

prison, via the Inst. Mail Room Staff. ^^tl A^#

Defendant , Pro Se

.s ue, ^/t P-51

§ 2921.52. Using. sham legal process

(A) As used in this section:

(1) "Lawfully issued" means adopted, issued, or rendered in accordance with the United States constitution, the constitution of a state,and the applicable statutes, rales, regulations, and ordinances of the United States, a state, and the political subdivisions of a state.

(2) "State" means a state of the United States, including without limitation, the state legislature, the highest court of the state that hasstatewidejurisdiction, the offices of all elected state officers, and all departments, boards, offices, cormnissions, agencies, institutions, andother instrumentalities of the state. "State" does not include the political subdivisions of the state.

(3) "Pofitical subdivisions" means municipal corporations, townships, counties, school districts, and all other bodies corporate andpolitic that are organized under state law and are responsible for govemmental activities only in geographical areas smaller than that of a

state.

(4) "Sham legal process" means an instrument that meets all of the following conditions:

(a) It is not lawfully issued.

(b) It pruports to do any of the following:

(i) To be a summons, subpoena, judgment, or order of a court, a law enforcement officer, or a legislative, executive, or

administrative body.

(ii) To assertjurisdiction over or detemune the legal or equitable status, rights, duties, powers, or privileges of any person or

properLy.

(iii) To require or authorize the search, seizure, indictment, arrest, trial, or sentencing of any person or property.

(c) It is designed to make another person believe that it is lawflilly issued.

(B) No person shall, knowing the sham legal process to be sham legal process, do any of the following:

(1) Knowingly issue, display, deliver, distribute, or otherwise use sham legal process;

(2) Knowingly use sham legal process to arrest, detain, search, or seize any person or the property of another person;

(3) Knowingly conunit or facilitate the commission of an offense, using sham legal process;

(4) Knowingly commit a felony by using sham legal process.

(C) It is an affrnnative defense to a charge under division (Bx1) or (2) of this section that the use of sham legal process was for a lawful

purpose.

(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of using sham legal process. A violation of division (B)(1) of this section is a misdemeanor ofthe fourth degree. A violation of division (BX2) or (3) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, except that, if the purpose of aviolation of division (B)(3) of this section is to commit or facilitate the commission of a felony, a violation of division (BX3) of thissection is a felony of the fourth degree. A violation of division (B)(4) of this section is a felony of the third degree.

(E) A person who violates this section is hable in a civil action to any person harmed by the violation for injury, death, or loss to person orproperty incurred as a result of the commission of the offense and for reasonable attomey's fees, court costs, and other expenses incurredas a result of prosecuting the civil action commenced under this division. A civil action under this division is not the exclusive remedy ofa person who incurs injury, death, or loss to person or property as a result of a violation of this section.

§ 2923.01. Conspiracy(A) No person, with purpose to commit or to promote or facilitate the commission of aggravated murder, murder, kidnapping,

abduction, compelling prostitution, promoting prostitution, trafficking in persons, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery,aggravated burglary, burglary, trespassing in a habitation when a person is present or likely to be present, engaging in a pattem of corruptactivity, corrupting another with drugs, a felony drug trafficking, manufacturing, processing, or possession offense, theft of drugs, orillegal processing of drug documents, the commission of a felony offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle, illegally transnutting multipleconunercial electronic mail messages or unauthorized access of a computer in violation of section 2923.421 of the Revised Code, or the4-nUr.cf.) P.52)

conunission of a violation of any provision of Chapter 3734. of the Revised Code, other than section 3734.18 of the Reyised

Code, that relates to hazardous wastes, shall do either of the follong:

(1) With another person or persons, plan or aid in planning the commission of any of the specified offenses;

(2) Agree with another person or persons that one or more of them will engage in conduct that facilitates the commission of any of thespecified offenses.

(B) No person shall be convicted of conspiracy unless a substantial overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is alleged and proved tohave been done by the accused or a person with whom the accused conspired, subsequent to the accused's entrance into the conspiracy.For purposes of this section, an overt act is substantial when it is of a character that manifests a purpose on the part of the actor that theobject of the conspiracy should be completed.

(C) When the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that a person with whom the offender conspires also has conspired or isconspinng with another to commit the same offense, the offender is guilty of conspiring with that other person, even though the otherperson's identity may be unknown to the offender.

(D) It is no defense to a charge under this section that, in retrospect, commission of the offense that was the object of the conspiracy wasimpossible under the circumstances,

(E) A conspiracy terminates when the offense or offenses that are its objects are conunitted or when it is abandoned by all conspirators. hithe absence of abandonment, it is no defense to a charge under this section that no offense that was the object of the conspiracy wascommitted.

(F) A person who conspires to conunit more tban one offense is guilty of only one conspiracy, when the offenses are the object of thesame agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship.

(G) When a person is convicted of conunitting or attempting to commit a specific offense or of complicity in the conunission of orattempt to commit the specific offense, the person shall not be convicted of conspiracy involving the same offense.

(H) (1) No person shall be convicted of conspiracy upon the testimony of a person with whom the defendant conspired, unsupported byother evidence.

(2) If a person with whom the defendant allegedly has conspired testifies against the defendant in a case in which the defendant ischarged with conspiracy and if the testimony is supported by other evidence, the court, when it charges the jury, shall state snbstantiallythe following:

"The testimony of an accomplice that is supported by other evidence does not become inadmissible because of the accomplice'scomplicity, moral turpitude, or self-interest, but the admitted or claimed complicity of a witness may affect the witness' credibility andmake the witness' testimony subject to grave suspicion, and require that it be weighed with great caution.

It is for you, as jurors, in the light of all the facts presented to you from the witness stand, to evaluate such testimony and to determineits quality and worth or its lack of quality and worth."

(3) "Conspiracy," as used in division (H)(1) of this section, does not include any copiracy that results in an attempt to commit anoffense or in the commission of an offense.

(I) The following are affiimative defenses to a charge of conspiracy:

(1) After conspiring to commit an offense, the actor thwarted the success of the conspiracy under circumstances manifesting a completeand voluntary renunciation of the actor's criminal purpose.

(2) After conspiring to commit an offense, the actor abandoned the conspiracy prior to the conunission of or attempt to conunit anyoffense that was the object of the conspiracy, either by advising all other conspirators of the actor's abandonment, or by informing any lawenforcement authority of the existence of the conspiracy and of the actor's participation in the conspiracy.

(J) Whoever violates this section is guilty of conspiracy, which is one of the following:

(1) A felony of the first degree, when one of the objects of the conspiracy is aggravated murder, murder, or an offense for which themaximum penalty is imprisonment for life;

(2) A felony of the next lesser degree than the most serious offense that is the object of the conspiracy, when the most serious offensethat is the object of the conspiracy is a felony of the first, second, third, or fourth degree;

5(y. Cfi. P, ff+

(3) A felony punishable by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than eighteen months, orboth, when the offense that is the object of the conspiracy is a violation of any provision of Chapter 3734. of the Revised Code, other than

section 3734.18 of the Revised Code, that relates to hazardous wastes;

(4) A misdemeanor of the first degree, when the most serious offense that is the object of the conspiracy is a felony of the fifth degree.

(K) This section does not define a separate conspiracy offense or penalty where conspiracy is defined as an offense by one or moresections of the Revised Code, other t6an this section. In such a case, however:

(1) With respect to the offense specified as the object of the conspiracy in the other section or sections, division (A) of this sectiondefmes the voluntary act or acts and culpable mental state necessary to constitute the conspiracy;

(2) Divisions (B) to (I) of this section are incorporated by reference in the conspiracy offense defmed by the other section or sections ofthe Revised Code.

(L) (1) In addition to the penalties that otherwise are imposed for conspiracy, a person who is found guilty of conspiracy to engage in apatteni of corrupt activity is subject to divisions (BX2) and (3) of section 2923.32, division (A) of section 2981.04, and division (D) of

section 2981.06 of the Revised Code.

(2) If a person is convicted of or pleads guilty to conspiracy and if the most serious offense that is the object of the conspiracy is afelony drug trafficking, manufacturing, processing, or possession offense, in addition to the penalties or sanctions that may be imposed forthe conspiracy under division (J)(2) or (4) of this section and Chapter 2929. of the Revised Code, both of the following apply:

(a) The provisions of divisions (D), (F), and (G) of section 2925.03, division (D) of section 2925.04, division (D) of section 2925.05,

division (D) of section 2925.06, and division (E) of section 2925.11 of theReyised Code that pertain to mandatory andadditional fines, driver's or commercial driver's license or permit suspensions, and professionally licensed persons and that would applyunder the appropnate provisions of those divisions to a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to the felony drug trafficldng,manufacturing, processing, or possession offense that is the most serious offense that is the basis of the conspiracy shall apply to theperson who is convicted of or pleads guilty to the conspiracy as if the person had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to the felony drugtrafficking, manufacturing, processing, or possession offense that is the most serious offense that is the basis of the conspiracy.

(b) The court that imposes sentence upon the person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to the conspiracy shall comply with theprovisions identified as being applicable under division (L)(2) of this section, in addition to any other penalty or sanction that it imposesfor the conspiracy under division (JX2) or (4) of this section and Chapter 2929. of the Revised Code.

(M) As used in this section:

(1) "Felony drug trafficking, manufacturing, processing, or possession offense" means any of the following that is a felony:

(a)A violation of section 2925.03, 2925.04 2925.05, or 2925.06 of the Revised Code;

(b) A violation of section 2925.11 of the Revised Code that is not a minor drug possession offense.

(2) "Minor drog possession offense" has the same meaning as in section 2925.01 of the Revised Code.

§ 2923.02. Attempt

(A) No person, purposely or knowingly, and when purpose or knowledge is sufficient culpability for the commission of an offense, shallengage in conduct that, if successful, would constitute or result in the offense.

(B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that, in retrospect, commission of the offense that was the object of the attempt waseither factually or legally impossible under the attendant circumstances, if that offense could have been committed had the attendantcircumstances been as the actor believed them to be.(C) No person who is convicted of committing a specific offense, of complicity in the commission of an offense, or of conspiracy tocommit an offense shall be convicted of an attempt to commit the same offense in violation of this section.

(D) It is au affnmative defense to a charge under this section that the actor abandoned the actor's effort to commit the offense or otherwiseprevented its commission, under circrunstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of the actor's criminal purpose.

(E) (1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of an attempt to conunit an offense. An attempt to conunit aggravated murder, murder, or anoffense for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for life is a felony of the first degree. An attempt to conurnt a drug abuse offense

.SuP, (!-f )955

for which the penalty is determined by the amount or number of unit doses of the controlled substance involved in the drng abuse offenseis an offense of the same degree as the drag abuse offense attempted would be if that drug abuse offense had been commiited and hadinvolved an amount or number of unit doses of the controlled substance that is within the next lower range of controlled substanceamounts than was involved in the attempt An attempt to commit any other offense is an offense of the next lesser degree than the offenseattempted. In the case of an attempt to conunit an offense other than a violation of Chapter 3734. of the Revised Code that is notspecifically classified, an attempt is a misdemeanor of the first degree if the offense attempted is a felony, and a misdemeanor of thefourth degree if the offense attempted is a misdemeanor. In the case of an attempt to comniit a violation of any provision of Chapter 3734.

of the Revised Code, other than section 3 734.1$ of the Revised Code, that relates to hazardous wastes, an attempt is a felony

punishable by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than eighteen months, or both. An

attempt to commit a minor misdemeanor, or to engage in conspiracy, is not an offense under this section.

(2) If a person is convicted of or pleads guilty to attempted rape and also is convicted of or pleads guilty to a specification of the type

described in section 2941 1418 [2941.14.18], 2941 1419 [2941 14.191, or 2941 1420 12941 14 20] of the

Revised Code, the offender shall be sentenced to a prison term or tenn of life imprisonment pursuant to Section 2971.03of the

Revised Code.

(3) In addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to division (E)(1) of this section for an attempt to commit aggravated murder or

murder in violation of division (A) of this section, if the offender used a motor vehicle as the means to attempt to coaunit the offense, thecourt shall impose upon the offender a class two suspension of the offender's driver's ficense, commercial dd.ver's license, temporary

instruction permit, probationary license, or nomesident operating privilege as specified in division (A)(2) of Section 4510.02 of the

Revised Code.

(F) As used in this section:

(1) "Drug abuse offense" has the same meaning as in section 2925.01 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in section 4501.01 of the Revised Code.

,s , ^. c+• P` S^

21r'5 QopY, + i rYi ^^-âmP ^^le^ gnd1-

COMMON PLEASIN THE MADISON COUNTY ODURT OF

Mr.Stefoun D. Hunter,

Peti+3oner/Pro se

V.

Deb T. Cooper, Warden-L.O.C.I.,

Respondent

Ag utIn The Court of Comm^hio

Madison County,

Clerk ovou1s

civ. Case # cC Qc?0I2 bD 70 )

"Habeas Corpus°

Hon. Judge,Robert D. Nichols(R)

Inre: Motion for Summary Judgment,

pursuant to Civ. Rule (56) &

O.R.C. § (2725.06)

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Now comes the petitioner Mr. Stefoun D. Hunter, as afore, and in Pro se fashion

and hereby, Respectfully motions the instant Madison Co. Court of Common Pleas, for Su-

mmary Judgment pursuant to the above listed Authorities.

Attached hereto, is the petitioner's legal Memorandum in support of the foregoing.


Certificate of Service

at page( '4 )hereof.

Mr. SteYoun D. Hunter#A 638-789

Petitioner/Pro se

L.O.C.I.,PO HOX(69)


6,Ar.ct,Ps!


Now before the instant Madison Co., Ct., is the petitioner, Mr. Hunter, as

afore, and hereby submits his Cause and Ground for the relief now being sought.

11 #(1), The petitioner hereof, had cause to file his Petition for Habeas Corpus

,^ / O^N /92011)under Civ Case #(C-=vN26à C,-070 )•Relief, in the instant Cthse, on( N

fI # (2), The Respondent hereof, through it's Counsel of record, did file +heir Re-

turn of Writ, . on ( ®3 / asC^ /2012 ) .

n#(3), The instant Ct., of the case at bar, setforth an Order upon the petitioner

hereof, on (0+ / 1 0 /2012), in which to have the petitioner prove that he was in the

custody of +1ze Respondent, One. Mrs. Debra T. Cooper, the Warden of L.O.C.I.,and the

Petitioner hereof, did comply to the above mentioned Order of the instant Ct., on(O+/

,^j/2012).

tT # (4), The Petitioner hereof, had Cause to file an"Motion to Strike" the Respopdent's

Return of Writ, on (01+/ a7 & /2012). The instant Ct., has yet to Rule thereof. The Ohio

Supreme Court Rules of Superintendence, Rule (40) (A) (3), dictates that all motions are

to be ruled upon within (120)days from the date the motion was filed.RESPECTFULLY Invoked.

ti # (5), The time for any responsive pleading by the Respondebt, has ended(. There are

no issues to be resolved due to the failure of the respondent to file any form of object-

ion or objections to *_he Petitioner's Motion to Strike, as mentioned above.

17 # (6),There are no known date or dates set for any form of hearing scheduled what so

ever at this present date in time in which to disallow the issuance of this motion for

Summary Judgment. P.(2) D, C Q

tl # (7), The Petitioner hereof, is fully entitled to Summary Judgment, as

there are no genuine issues as to any Material Fact, and therefore by law, is entitled

to Summary Judgment accordingly, in his favor.

RELIEF SOUGFPP

11 #(8),The Petitioner hereof, would state that any prudent reasonable minded

jurist, can come to but one clusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against

whom the motion for Summary Judgment is made, that party being entitled to have *1ze evid-

ence or stipulationcons+xued most strongly in +-he party's favor. By a preponderence of

the Material Evidence and the facts of the case at bar, the Petitioner is clearly entit-

led to +he relief soutPub, FORTHWITH. The pe+ztioner seeks issuance of the Wri*_, for*lzwith,

via Summary Judgment in his favor.

11 #(9),O.R.C.§ (2725.06) States in pertinent part fhat: When a petition for a

Writ of Habeas Corpus is presented, if it appears that the Writ ought to issue, a court

or judge authorized to grant the Writ, MUST grant it Forthwith.The Petitioner hereof,does

hereby, INVOKE the Benefit of the instant Statutory Law, regarding O.R.C. § (2725.06),as

being his State and Federal Constitutional Rights to Procedural Due Process and Equal

Protection of the Law, as Guranteed him via Art (1) §(10)& § (16) of the Ohio Const.

Notwithstanding, the (5th & 14f1z) Amendments of the U.S. Constitution of America.

q #(10),The Petitioner hereof, hereby, invokes ARTICLE (1)§(8)of the Ohio

Constitution, Bill of Rights. Which states that:The privilege of the Writ of Habeas

Corpus SHALL not be suspended, unless, in cases of rebellion or invasion, +he publis

safty require it.

'FULLY SUBMITTED, fl 9 uitt&I-Mr.Stefo D. Hunt.er#A638-789

Petitioner/Pro se-L.O.C.I.,PO BOX(69)


P. (3) aj 1 r s 7


This is to serve as proof that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing motion

for Summary Judgment, was placed in the U.S. mail, for delivery to all parties of the

instant case as listed under case #CVHj®ro10®r7® , of the Madison Co., Cthse,in

London-Ohio, located at: Courthouse, One North Main St.,London-Ohio, PO BOX 527, 43140-

0527. On this_Lday of June of ( 2012).Notwithstanding, a copy of the same to the Warden-

Mrs. Debra T. Cooper, of L.O.C.I.-Prison, via the Institutional Mailroom Staff, on 06 ,

D /2012.

Mr.Stefoun D. Hunter#A(638-789)

Petitioner/Pro se

L.O.C.I.,PO BOX(69)


.5w r. G^ P. o

AFFIDAVIT IF VERITY

I, W Stefoun D. Hunter, The Affiant, being duly cautioned of the penalty of

perjury does aver and state to wit the following: that I have drafted, read

and can competently testify to all matters stated herein, and that the con-

tents of the foregoing petition for the extr.aor.dinary writ of habeas corpus

is true and accurate to the best of my knowlAdge and or belief, and that the

court documentation made a part of the foregoing is and or are true and accur-

ate copies of the originals.FURTHE2 THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

FFIA/Px'o seA

STATE OF OHIO

))SSCOUNTY OF MADISON:..

SWORN TO AND SOBSCRIBID TO IN MY PRESENCE ON THISILDAY OF

20_^L.

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOTARY PUBL C

..IMudel D. Reinel P. ( 6^-)

* •ENotary p0q $lat® of Oldo

;N^v '`0,5 ^,^^S^t912019

J"^ gilI

J.^ pff .,'^^.̂ C'N iN^^ • ^


This is to serve as proof that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing

was placed in the U.S. mail, on this3Q day of July, of (2012), for delivery to all

parties of the foregoing action in the Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus, of the

Ohio Supreme Court, (65) South Front St.,Columbus-Ohio 43215-3431.

Mr.Stef6un D. Hunter#(A)638-789

Petitioner/Pro se/L.O.C.I.,Prison

PO BOX (69)-London-Ohio 43140-0069

P.(62)