State v. Hocking Cty. Ct. Com. Pl.

227 N.E.3d 1202

173 Ohio St.3d 118

2023-Ohio-3534

The STATE EX REL. OGLE, Appellant,

v.HOCKING COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT et al., Appellees.

No. 2022-1052

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted February 28, 2023

Decided October 3, 2023

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hocking County, No. 20CA9.

Melanie A. Ogle, pro se.

Randall L. Lambert, Ironton, and Cassaundra L. Sark, for appellees.

Kennedy, C.J.

₁₁₈{¶ 1} In this appeal from a judgment of the Fourth District Court of Appeals, appellant, Melanie A. Ogle, challenges the court of appeals’ grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees, the Hocking County Common Pleas Court and Judge Dale Crawford (collectively, "the trial court"), in her action for writs of mandamus and prohibition. The Fourth District correctly determined that the doctrine of res judicata bars Ogle’s claims that the trial court deprived her of her right to counsel and lacked jurisdiction to sentence her. We therefore affirm the Fourth District’s judgment.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} In August 2011, a jury found Ogle guilty of assaulting a peace officer, a felony violation of R.C. 2903.13. The trial court granted Ogle a recognizance bond until her sentencing, but on September 9, the state moved to revoke the bond. The state’s motion cited an incident report issued by the Logan Police Department, which, according to the state’s motion, indicated that Ogle had "had direct, confrontational contact with a juror in this case." When Ogle failed to appear for a hearing on the motion, the trial court revoked her bond and issued a bench warrant.

₁₁₉{¶ 3} On September 16, the trial court placed Ogle on house arrest with electronic monitoring. The court’s order stated that Ogle "shall be released on a Recognizance Bond with the conditio[n that] the Defendant is to have no contact, direct or indirect, with any juror, witness, lawyer or the Court while on bond." (Emphasis added.)

{¶ 4} Ogle was represented by counsel at trial and at the September 16 revocation hearing. On September 21, however, she filed a "notice of pro se appearance" in which she waived her right to counsel due to her inability to pay.

{¶ 5} On September 27, the trial court held Ogle’s sentencing hearing; At the hearing, Ogle refused to sign a waiver-of-counsel form, insisting that she was not waiving her right to counsel but that she had "an inability to obtain counsel." The trial court asked Ogle three times whether she wanted the court to appoint counsel to represent her. Ogle did not directly answer the court’s questions but responded that she was not waiving her right to counsel. The court told Ogle that it would "take [her] notice of pro se appearance as a voluntary waiver of [her] right to counsel at th[at] point in time because [she had] not requested the Court [to] appoint Counsel on [her] behalf." Ogle continued to assert at the hearing that she was not waiving her right to counsel, prompting the court to say the following:

Well, as I said, I could have ten different hearings, Mrs. Ogle, with you, and you could say the same thing, I haven’t waived my right to counsel and then I don’t know what I am supposed to do. I can’t force counsel upon you. I have asked you if you want the Court to appoint counsel since you can’t afford one. You won’t answer yes under that question so I am going to proceed with sentencing.

{¶ 6} The trial court then conducted the sentencing hearing and imposed a three-year period of community control, a six-month jail term, a $2,500 fine, and $792.65 in restitution and ordered Ogle to pay court costs. When the court asked whether she had anything else to say before the hearing ended, Ogle stated, "I do not waive my right to counsel. I have an inability to obtain counsel." Ogle added that she believed that the hearing violated her rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

{¶ 7} On September 28, the trial court journalized its sentencing entry, which stayed the start of Ogle’s jail term until October 27. The record does not show what, if anything, occurred on October 27. On November 22, the trial court summoned Ogle back to court, apparently out of concern that "there may [have been] some type of misunderstanding." At that hearing, the court stated, "[A]t no time have I ever ordered you not to have any contact with a lawyer." When Ogle ₁₂₀asserted that the court’s September 16 bond order forbade her from speaking to any attorney, the court responded, "The bond order doesn’t say that." The court then told Ogle that if she wanted an attorney to represent her, it "would be happy to appoint [one] for purposes of her appeal" as well as her bond argument, provided she filled out an affidavit of indigency. The hearing concluded with no resolution of the legal-representation question.

{¶ 8} On November 22, the trial court revoked Ogle’s bond after it was notified that Ogle would no longer pay for electronic monitoring.

{¶ 9} The Fourth District affirmed Ogle’s conviction on direct appeal. See State v. Ogle, 4th Dist. Hocking Nos. 11CA29, 11CA32, 12CA2, 12CA11, 12CA12, and 12CA19, 2013-Ohio-3420, 2013 WL 3988782; ¶ 48 ("Ogle I").

{¶ 10} Approximately seven years later, in September 2020, Ogle filed a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition in the Fourth District. She alleged that the trial court had no jurisdiction to hold the September 27, 2011 sentencing hearing because she had not waived her right to counsel. She asked the court of appeals to void the September 28, 2011 sentence.

{¶ 11} On the trial court’s motion, the Fourth District dismissed the complaint. The court of appeals held that a writ of prohibition would not lie, because the trial court had general jurisdiction over Ogle’s felony case. And it held that Ogle was not entitled to mandamus relief, because she had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal to assert her right-to-counsel claim.

{¶ 12} Ogle appealed as of right to this court, which reversed and remanded. State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking Cty. Common Pleas Court, 167 Ohio St.3d 181, 2021-Ohio-4453, 190 N.E.3d 594, ¶ 19, 24 ("Ogle II"). In reaching its conclusion, a majority of this court relied on Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), in which the United States Supreme Court held that when the accused "is not represented by counsel and has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right, the Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence." See Ogle II at ¶ 12-14. The majority held that Ogle had stated a colorable claim that her underlying conviction was void. Id. at ¶ 19.

{¶ 13} On remand, the Fourth District granted summary judgment in favor of the trial court. According to the court of appeals, Ogle "already presented her arguments regarding (1) the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to sentence her and (2) the violation of her Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights" in 2011 in her direct appeal from her conviction in Ogle I, 2013-Ohio-3420. Having already unsuccessfully presented these claims, the Fourth District reasoned, Ogle’s second effort to raise the same issues was barred by res judicata.

{¶ 14} Ogle has appealed to this court as of right.

₁₂₁Law and Analysis

[1–3] {¶ 15} "The doctrine of res judicata bars someone from raising a claim that could have been raised and litigated in a prior proceeding." State v. Blanton, 171 Ohio St.3d 19, 2022-Ohio-3985, 215 N.E.3d 467, ¶ 2. However, res judicata does not preclude review of a sentence that is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427, 2014-Ohio-1052, 7 N.E.3d 1188, ¶ 46; State v. Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40, 45, 652 N.E.2d 196 (1995), fn. 6. Conversely, "[w]here a judgment of conviction is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and jurisdiction of the subject matter, such judgment is not void, and the cause of action merged therein becomes res judicata as between the state and the defendant." State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph six of the syllabus.

[4, 5] {¶ 16} "Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the constitutional or statutory power of a court to adjudicate a particular class or type of case." State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, ¶ 23, citing Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 11-12, 34. " ‘A court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is determined without regard to the rights of the individual parties involved in a particular case.’ " Id., quoting Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75, 2014-Ohio-4275, 21 N.E.3d 1040, ¶ 19. "Rather, the focus is on whether the forum itself is competent to hear the controversy." Id., citing 18A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 4428, at 6 (3d Ed.2017) ("Jurisdictional analysis should be confined to the rules that actually allocate judicial authority among different courts").

[6] {¶ 17} "[P]ursuant to R.C. 2931.03, ‘a common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases.’ " Id. at ¶ 25, quoting Smith v. Sheldon, 157 Ohio St.3d 1, 2019-Ohio-1677, 131 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 8. The Hocking County Court of Common Pleas, then, was the proper forum in which to sentence Ogle for her felony offense. Consideration of the question whether the trial court denied her right to counsel concerns the rights of the parties, not the adjudicatory power of the court. The trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, and "when a specific action is within a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, any error in the exercise of that jurisdiction renders the court’s judgment voidable, not void," id. at ¶ 26.

{¶ 18} In Ogle II, 167 Ohio St.3d 181, 2021-Ohio-4453, 190 N.E.3d 594, at ¶ 19, a majority of this court disregarded these settled principles and concluded that "Ogle has stated a colorable claim that Judge Crawford violated her Sixth Amendment rights when he ordered...