Sheffel v. Sulikowski

As a preliminary matter, we note that the appellee claims that this matter was not properly before the Court of Appeals pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus. This court, however, has recognized this extraordinary writ as a means to challenge confinement imposed through the involuntary commitment process under R. C. 5122.15. In re Klepper (1977), 49 Ohio St. 2d 211; McDuffie v. Berzzarins (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 23; In re Fisher (1974), 39 Ohio St. 2d 71; see, also, R. C. 5122.30. Appellee’s contention is, therefore, groundless.1

Turning to the merits of this cause, we must begin with the…