[Cite as State v. Taylor, 2015-Ohio-3805.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-15-1116
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201401705
v.
Laron D. Taylor DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: September 18, 2015
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Laron D. Taylor, pro se.
*****
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common
Pleas, denying appellant’s, Laron Taylor, R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On March 3, 2014, criminal complaints were filed against appellant in the
Toledo Municipal Court, alleging multiple drug offenses. The Toledo Municipal Court
docket entry for that date indicates “Affidavit Filed 03/03/2014 20:26. Warrant returned,
service made. Defendant arrested and booked into Lucas County Corrections Center on
03/03/2014 16:00.” On March 4, 2014, appellant was arraigned, a public defender was
assigned, appellant entered an initial plea of not guilty, and bond was set. On April 3,
2014, appellant consented to be bound over to the Lucas County Grand Jury. On April
30, 2014, the Lucas County Grand Jury returned a four-count indictment against
appellant, charging him with (1) aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(c), a felony of the second degree, (2) aggravated trafficking in
drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(d), a felony of the first degree, (3)
possession of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(6)(a), a felony of the fifth
degree, and (4) trafficking in heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(6)(b), a
felony of the fourth degree.
{¶ 3} On July 9, 2014, appellant, in open court, withdrew his initial plea of not
guilty, and also withdrew his pending motions to suppress, and entered a plea of no
contest to count one, aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the second degree, and
count four as amended to trafficking in heroin, a felony of the fifth degree. The
remaining two counts were nolled. The trial court proceeded immediately to sentencing,
and ordered appellant to serve a three-year prison term on count one, and an 11-month
2.
prison term on count four. The court further ordered those terms to be served
concurrently. Appellant did not file a direct appeal from his conviction.
{¶ 4} On January 14, 2015, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief
pursuant to R.C. 2953.21. Appellant’s petition centered on the theory that the trial court
lacked jurisdiction over the criminal matter because the initial warrant issued by the
Toledo Municipal Court was defective because it was issued without an independent
probable cause determination as highlighted in State v. Hoffman, 141 Ohio St.3d 428,
2014-Ohio-4795, 25 N.E.3d 993. This petition was denied by the trial court on April 2,
2015.
Assignments of Error
{¶ 5} Appellant has timely appealed the trial court’s April 2, 2015 judgment,
assigning two errors for our review:
(1) THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
LITIGATING A MATTER WITH WHICH THE TRIAL COURT DID
NOT ENJOY SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OF.
(2) The Post-Conviction/Trial Ct., Abused its Discretion to the
prejudice of the Relator/Appellant by litigating a matter with which the
Post-Conviction/Trial Ct., did not possess the Ohio Constitution’s Article
(IV) section (1) JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION, POWER
VESTED THEREIN TO ACT AS U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE
(III) SECTION (II) JUDICIAL OFFICER(S).
3.
Because appellant’s assignments of error are interrelated, we will address them together.
{¶ 6} At the outset, we note that a trial court’s decision granting or denying a
postconviction relief petition is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gondor, 112
Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 58.
{¶ 7} In his pro se brief on appeal, appellant makes similar arguments to the ones
that he raised in the trial court, namely that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the
warrants issued by the Toledo Municipal Court were invalid.
{¶ 8} However, in this case, the validity of the warrants from the Toledo
Municipal Court is inconsequential to the jurisdiction of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas. Even if the warrants were issued without a determination of probable
cause, and thus appellant’s arrest was unconstitutional—a determination we expressly do
not make—the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas still had jurisdiction over
appellant’s criminal case because appellant was indicted by the Lucas County Grand
Jury. See Simpson v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 71, 203 N.E.2d 324 (1964) (“The
jurisdiction of a trial court is invoked by a valid indictment or information and is not
dependent upon the validity of the process by which the accused is originally
apprehended. Thus, the illegality of the process by which one is taken into custody does
not affect the validity of a subsequent conviction based upon a proper indictment or
information.”). Thus, because a valid indictment was entered, the trial court had
jurisdiction, and appellant’s exhortations that his conviction is void are without merit.
{¶ 9} Accordingly, appellant’s assignments of error are not well-taken.
4.
{¶ 10} For the foregoing reasons, we find that substantial justice was done the
party complaining and the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
_______________________________
Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.
5.