State v. Cobia
2016 Ohio 7213
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2016Background
- In 2004 Ray Cobia pled guilty to sexual battery and impersonating a police officer and received concurrent four-year terms; he was classified as a sexually oriented offender with a 10-year registration duty starting at his 2008 release.
- Cobia returned to prison in 2013 after convictions (case B-1304778) for sexual battery, impersonating a police officer, and child enticement; those 2013 convictions were reversed or dismissed in 2015.
- In December 2015 Cobia filed a "Motion for Credit on Reporting Requirements" in the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court asking to credit the ~2 years he spent confined in 2013 against the 10-year Megan’s Law registration period from his 2004 convictions.
- He relied on Crim.R. 47 and R.C. 2950.07(D) and (E) as the basis for relief; the common pleas court overruled the motion.
- Cobia appealed; the First District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common pleas court had jurisdiction to grant credit against the 10-year registration period for time confined on later convictions | Cobia argued the tolling provision should not have extended his 10-year period and the court could grant credit under Crim.R.47 or R.C.2950.07 | Court concluded Crim.R.47 did not apply (not a pending criminal proceeding) and R.C.2950.07(E) permits credit only for time complying with another jurisdiction's registration, not time in confinement | Common pleas court had no statutory or procedural basis to grant the requested relief; motion was not cognizable under postconviction, Crim.R.33/32.1, mandamus, declaratory, habeas, or Civ.R.60(B) frameworks |
| Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the common pleas court's denial | Cobia sought appellate review of the overruling of his motion | Appellate court analyzed R.C.2953 (postconviction), R.C.2505 (final order), and void-judgment jurisdiction and found none applicable | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; order overruling motion was not a final, appealable order and judgment was not void |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 (2008) (trial court may recast pro se filings to identify applicable procedural vehicle)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (courts always have jurisdiction to correct a void judgment)
- State v. Powell, 90 Ohio App.3d 260 (1st Dist.) (postconviction relief statutes prescribe exclusive collateral remedy and require showing of constitutional violation)
- Tomkalski v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. 377 (1963) (habeas relief limited to persons in actual physical custody of the state)