Knowles v. Voorhies

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Knowles v. Voorhies, 121 Ohio St.3d 271, 2009-Ohio-1109.] KNOWLES, APPELLANT, v. VOORHIES, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Knowles v. Voorhies, 121 Ohio St.3d 271, 2009-Ohio-1109.] Habeas corpus Failure to attach copy of challenged bindover order Dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 2008-2261 Submitted March 11, 2009 Decided March 18, 2009.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Noble County, No. 08-NO-352, 2008-Ohio-5396. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant, Howard L. Knowles, did not attach to his petition one of the bindover entries he challenges. Thus, his petition is fatally defective and subject to dismissal because he did not attach copies of all of his pertinent commitment papers. Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 14. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. __________________ Howard L. Knowles, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. ______________________

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.