State v. Rickard
2016 Ohio 4755
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Joseph Rickard was indicted in Lucas County on April 29, 1993, for aggravated murder and aggravated robbery; convicted of the lesser-included offense of murder and sentenced to 15 years to life on June 17, 1993.
- Rickard’s direct appeal affirming the conviction was decided in 1994.
- He filed multiple postconviction and collateral actions challenging the indictment and counsel, which were previously dismissed or denied, including a 2008 application to reopen and a 2010 motion about the indictment signature.
- On January 28, 2016, Rickard moved in the trial court to dismiss his sentence, arguing the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the grand jury foreperson did not sign the indictment.
- The trial court denied the motion both on the merits and as previously litigated; Rickard appealed the denial to the Sixth District, which affirmed on June 30, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absence of grand jury foreperson’s signature on indictment deprives trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Rickard: unsigned indictment means court lacked jurisdiction and sentence must be dismissed | State: signature requirement does not deprive court of jurisdiction; rule is directory; issue waived and previously litigated | Court: Absence of signature does not remove subject-matter jurisdiction; claim is without merit, waived for failure to raise before trial, and barred by res judicata |
| Whether claim is barred by res judicata/waiver doctrines | Rickard: continued challenge to indictment signature despite earlier rulings | State: issue was previously raised and decided; failure to object before trial waived the defect | Court: Claim barred by res judicata and waived because defendant did not challenge indictment prior to trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Jago, 48 Ohio St.2d 51, 356 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio 1976) (absence of grand jury foreperson’s signature does not deprive court of jurisdiction)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been fully litigated)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Bumphus, 197 Ohio App.3d 68, 966 N.E.2d 278 (6th Dist. 2011) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules though courts may afford reasonable leeway)