State v. Jones

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Jones, 2004-Ohio-2424.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee vs. : : C.A. CASE NO. 20109 T.C. CASE NO. 01CR2208 VINCENT JONES : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 14th day of May, 2004. . . . . . . . . . Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Pros. Attorney; Natalia S. Harris, Asst. Pros. Attorney, P.O. Box 972, Dayton, Ohio 45422, Atty. Reg. No. 0072413 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee Vincent Jones, A-426-622, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 5500, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se . . . . . . . . . GRADY, J. {¶1} In a prior appeal, we affirmed Defendant-Appellant s convictions and sentences for rape and domestic violence but reversed the trial court s sexual predator s designation remanded for further proceedings on that issue. and State v. Jones (June 20, 2003), Montgomery App. No. 19355. {¶2} On September 10, 2003, the trial court designated Jones a sexually oriented offender. appeal from that order on Jones filed a timely notice of May 20, 2002. He presents two 2 assignments of error. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶3} THE TRIAL COURT WAS TOTALLY WITHOUT STATUTORY AND/OR PROCEDURAL SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF STATE V. JONES, AS A MATTER OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2931.02 AND R.C. 2931.03, O. PROTECTION CONST. CLAUSE ART. OF IV THE §4(b), AND FOURTEENTH THE FOURTH AMENDMENTS AND OF EQUAL THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶4} THE TRIAL COURT TOTALLY LACKED STATUTORY JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES. (R.C.7.01), AS JONES WAS NOT SERVED WITH PERSONAL SERVICE, AND IS ALLEGED ACCUSER NEVER INITIATED LAWFUL PROSECUTION IN ANY COURT OF LAW, IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 308.08, 2935.09, O. CONST. ART. IV §20, AND THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. {¶5} Jones does not contest the sexually oriented offender designation in the final judgment from which his was taken. Rather, he attacks the jurisdiction of the common pleas court to convict and sentence him for the offenses of rape and domestic violence, judgments which we previously affirmed. {¶6} Lack of subject matter jurisdiction renders any judgment void and subject to collateral attack, and that issue may be raised at any time including for the first time on appeal. Comer v. Bench (May 30, 2003), Montgomery App. No. 19229, 2003Ohio-2821; 02CA116, State v. Hous 2004-Ohio-666; (Feb. McNea 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 62685. v. 13, City 2004), of Greene Cleveland App. (Aug. No. 4, See also: State v. Wilson, 73 3 Ohio St.3d 40, 1995-Ohio-217; Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 2001-Ohio-1803. {¶7} The appellate jurisdiction of this court is invoked by filing a timely notice of appeal pursuant to App.R. 3. jurisdiction terminates upon a final judgment Our affirming, modifying, reversing or vacating the judgment of the trial court from which the appeal was taken. That occurred with respect to the prior appeal on June 20, 2003. The notice of appeal that Jones filed on May 20, 2002, again invoked our jurisdiction, but the two appeals represent separate and independent actions. {¶8} A valid, final judgment rendered in a prior action on the merits of the claims presented bars all subsequent actions based upon any claims arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. Grava v. Parkman (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379. The bar likewise applies to claims that could have been raised in the prior action but were not. {¶9} State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175. The jurisdictional claims that Defendant-Appellant now raises could have been raised in the prior action before this court, but were not. in this appeal. Therefore, they are barred from our review The bar may not be avoided by a collateral jurisdictional attack on a judgment entered by the trial court upon a remand ordered in the prior appeal. {¶10} The assignments of error are overruled. from which the appeal is taken will be affirmed. WOLFF, J. and YOUNG, J., concur. The judgment 4 Copies mailed to: Natalia S. Harris, Esq. Vincent Jones Hon. Richard S. Dodge

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.