2018 Ohio 2833
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 1995 Haddix was convicted in Stark County of multiple sexual offenses; convictions and sentences were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- Haddix repeatedly filed post-conviction and other collateral motions attempting to overturn his conviction; those motions were denied.
- In the petition at issue Haddix claimed the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because “DOUGLAS EDWARD HADDIX” was allegedly a foreign national and a corporation (a sovereign-citizen style theory).
- The trial court dismissed the petition as untimely and barred by res judicata; Haddix appealed that dismissal.
- The appellate court reviewed jurisdictional arguments, the timeliness/res judicata bar, Haddix’s submitted exhibits, and prior inconsistent affidavits by Haddix.
- The court affirmed, holding the common pleas court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, the petition was untimely and barred by res judicata, and the sovereignty/corporation claims lacked record support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | Court lacked power because defendant is a foreign national/corporation | Stark C.P. lacked jurisdiction over the charges | Court had subject-matter jurisdiction; R.C. grants common pleas original criminal jurisdiction |
| Personal jurisdiction | N/A (petition framed as subject-matter defect) | Haddix claimed he was not subject to court’s power due to sovereign/corporate status | Personal jurisdiction existed by residence, arrest, process; Haddix waived any objection by not timely objecting/appealing |
| Timeliness / res judicata | Petition should be considered regardless of timing because of jurisdictional claim | Petition filed well beyond R.C. 2953.21 deadline and repeats prior arguments | Petition untimely and barred by res judicata; prior rulings foreclose the claim |
| Corporation/sovereign status of defendant | The indicted entity was a corporation/foreign sovereign, so indictment was defective | Indictment named the individual; exhibits do not show a legally existing corporation at indictment time | Allegation unsupported, contradicted by Haddix’s own affidavits, and waived if not timely raised; sovereign immunity not available |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86 (1972) (defines subject-matter jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction is determined without regard to parties’ rights)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (2014) (discussion of Ohio courts’ jurisdictional scope)
- Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. v. DiMarco, 116 Ohio St.3d 167 (2007) (Ohio courts can exercise jurisdiction over residents)
- Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) (standards for U.S. citizenship revocation)
- United States v. Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1984) (sovereign-diplomatic immunity cannot be unilaterally self-asserted)