State v. Holland , 2013 Ohio 4136 ( 2013 )

[Cite as State v. Holland, 2013-Ohio-4136.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 13-CA-53
:
BRIAN E. HOLLAND :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 10 CR 00628
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 10, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
KENNETH W. OSWALT BRIAN E. HOLLAND, PRO SE
LICKING CO. PROSECUTOR #647-963
JUSTIN T. RADIC Franklin Medical Center
20 S. Second St., Fourth Floor 1800 Harmon Ave.
Newark, OH 43055 P.O. Box 23651
Columbus, OH 43223
Licking County, Case No.13-CA-53 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Brian E. Holland appeals from the June 10, 2013 judgment entry
of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas overruling his motion regarding an “illegal
complaint.” Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} A statement of the facts underlying appellant’s conviction is not necessary
to our resolution of this appeal.
{¶3} Appellant was charged by indictment with one count of illegal manufacture
of methamphetamine pursuant to R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3)(a), a felony of the second
degree, and one count of illegal assembly of chemicals with intent to manufacture
methamphetamine pursuant to R.C. 2925.041(A)(C)(1), a felony of the third degree.
Appellant was found guilty as charged upon trial by jury and sentenced to a prison term
of seven years. We affirmed appellant’s convictions and sentence in State v. Holland,
5th Dist. Licking No. 11-CA-47, 2013-Ohio-904, appeal not allowed, 136 Ohio St.3d
1404, 2013-Ohio-2645, 989 N.E.2d 1020.1
{¶4} On May 3, 2013, appellant filed a “Motion Subject Matter Jurisdiction In-
Valid Complaint (sic)” in the trial court, asserting the original complaint filed in municipal
court was invalid pursuant to Crim.R. 3 and therefore the resulting judgment was a
nullity. On June 10, 2013, the trial court overruled appellant’s motion by Judgment
Entry, noting appellant was duly indicted by grand jury on November 12, 2010.
{¶5} Appellant now appeals from the judgment entry of the trial court.
1
The rest of the lengthy and circuitous appellate history of this case is not relevant to
the issues herein.
Licking County, Case No.13-CA-53 3
{¶6} This case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App.R. 11.1 governs
accelerated-calendar cases and states in pertinent part:
(E) Determination and judgment on appeal.
The appeal will be determined as provided by App.R. 11.1.
It shall be sufficient compliance with App.R. 12(A) for the
statement of the reason for the court’s decision as to each
error to be in brief and conclusionary form.
The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will
not be published in any form.
{¶7} One of the most important purposes of the accelerated calendar is to
enable an appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision more quickly than in
a case on the regular calendar where the briefs, facts, and legal issues are more
complicated. See, Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn., 11 Ohio App.3d 158, 463
N.E.2d 655 (10th Dist.1983).
{¶8} Appellant raises one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT-
APPELLANTS MOTION TO FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED IN THE
MUNICIPAL COURT DID NOT COMFORT TO CRIM.R. 3 & WAS INVALID & THAT
THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION IS A NULLITY (sic throughout).”
ANALYSIS
{¶10} Appellant argues the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction due
to an invalid complaint in the municipal court. We disagree.
Licking County, Case No.13-CA-53 4
{¶11} Contrary to appellant’s argument, subject matter jurisdiction properly rests
with the court of common pleas in the instant case. Assuming arguendo there are any
flaws in the municipal court complaint, those errors are irrelevant. Felony jurisdiction of
the court of common pleas is invoked upon the return of an indictment by the grand jury,
which occurred in this case on November 12, 2010. Click v. Eckle, 174 Ohio St. 88, 89,
186 N.E.2d 731 (1962).
{¶12} R.C. 2931.03 states in pertinent part, “The court of common pleas has
original jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses, except in cases of minor offenses the
exclusive jurisdiction of which is vested in courts inferior to the court of common pleas.”
Crim.R. 7(A) states in pertinent part, “A felony that may be punished by death or life
imprisonment shall be prosecuted by indictment. All other felonies shall be prosecuted
by indictment * * *.” An affidavit and complaint are not necessary when an indictment
has been filed. State v. Robison, 5th Dist. Licking No. 02CA00015, 2002-Ohio-7216, ¶
51.
{¶13} Upon appellant’s indictment by the grand jury, he was properly within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. “Consequently, any alleged
defects with the initial complaint are irrelevant and harmless to appellant's convictions
because he was tried and convicted on the indictment.” State v. Henderson, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 95655, 2012-Ohio-1040, appeal not allowed, 132 Ohio St.3d 1516, 2012-
Ohio-4021, 974 N.E.2d 113, citing State v. Jenkins, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 02CA5,
2003–Ohio–1058, ¶ 24.
Licking County, Case No.13-CA-53 5
{¶14} The trial court properly overruled appellant’s motion challenging the
court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant’s sole assignment of error is therefore
overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶15} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J. and
Farmer, P.J.
Wise, J., concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
HON. JOHN W. WISE