Foy v. Ohio Atty. Gen.Foy v. Ohio Atty. Gen.
Rendered on January 11, 2022
On brief: Raymond Foy, pro se.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Margaret S. Moore, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
LUPER SCHUSTER, P.J.
{1} Plaintiff-appellant, Raymond Foy, pro se, appeals from a decision and entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting the motion to dismiss of defendant-appellee, State of Ohio Attorney General. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{2} Foy, an inmate currently in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, filed a complaint against the state on June 5, 2020 seeking a declaration that he is a wrongfully imprisoned individual pursuant to
{3} In response, the state filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
{4} In an August 5, 2021 decision and entry, the trial court granted the state‘s motion to dismiss. The trial court agreed with the state that the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether someone is a wrongfully imprisoned individual rests with the common pleas court in the county where the underlying criminal action was initiated. Thus, the trial court concluded that because Foy‘s underlying criminal action was initiated in Stark County, only the Stark County Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction to determine whether Foy is a wrongfully imprisoned individual under
II. Assignments of Error
{5} Foy assigns the following errors for our review:
- [1.] The trial court erred when it granted the State of Ohio motion to dismiss by improperly finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff‘s wrongfull imprisonment. Action
- [2.] The trial court erred as a matter of law when it improperly. Found that plaintiff wrongfull imprisonment action must be made where the underlying criminal action was initiated specifically Stark Count. No underlying criminal action was initiated against plaintiff in Stark County plaintiff filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the aggravated robbery indictment. Because it donot charge plaintiff with robbing any person in Stark County the Stark County Court of Common Pleas lacked
jurisdiction of the subject matter CountOne indictment donot charge any offense plaintiff‘s judgment of conviction is void that derived from Count-One indictment - [3.] The trial court erred when it granted defendant motion to dismiss and reply motions those motion donot state the manner of service
- [4.] The trial Judge falsified the facts/record plaintiff was not electronically served a copy of the court“s decision entry
- [5.] The trial court erred when it failed to direct the clerk of court to serve plaintiff a copy of it‘s August-5-2021 decision/entry dismissal of plaintiff complaint
- [6.] The trial court erred when it improperly ruled plaintiff‘s motion for default judgment moot entry
- [7.] A jurisdictional defect cannot be waived this means that the lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time even for the first time on appeal it is raised here now
(Sic passim.)
III. First and Second Assignments of Error – Motion to Dismiss
{6} Foy‘s first and second assignments of error are interrelated and we address them jointly. Taken together, Foy argues in his first and second assignments of error that the trial court erred in granting the state‘s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
{7}
{8} Foy asserted in his complaint that he is a wrongfully imprisoned individual pursuant to
{9} Additionally,
The court of common pleas in the county where the underlying criminal action was initiated has exclusive, original jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or proceeding that is commenced by an individual who satisfies divisions (A)(1) to (5) of section 2743.48 of the Revised Code and that seeks a determination by the court that an error in procedure of the type described in division (A)(5) of that section occurred, that the offense of which the individual was found guilty, including all lesser included offenses, was not committed by the individual, or that no offense was committed by any person. If the court enters the requested determination, it shall comply with division (B) of that section.
Thus, based on the plain language of
{10} Here, Foy seeks a declaration that he is a wrongfully imprisoned individual under the first step of the two-step process outlined in
{11} Foy attempts to overcome the jurisdictional hurdle by arguing that his underlying criminal action did not originate in Stark County, or in any other county for that matter. Foy asserts that, because of an alleged defect in his indictment, Stark County lacked jurisdiction to convict him and argues both his indictment and subsequent conviction are void ab initio. Despite Foy‘s argument that his criminal action could not have originated in Stark County because it was not properly initiated, we note that the plain language of
{12} For these reasons, the trial court did not err in granting the state‘s
IV. Third, Fourth, and Fifth Assignments of Error – Issues with Service
{13} In his third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error, Foy argues the trial court erred in ruling on the state‘s motion to dismiss both because the state did not properly serve
{14} Initially, Foy argues the state failed to comply with
{15} Here, the state‘s July 10, 2020 motion to dismiss contained a certificate of service, though the certificate of service did not specify what manner of service the state used. Despite that omission, Foy filed a July 23, 2020 response to the state‘s motion to dismiss. Thus, Foy does not allege that he was not properly served a copy of the state‘s motion to dismiss; instead, he alleges only that the state‘s certificate of service was insufficient. Only after filing his response to the state‘s motion to dismiss did Foy note any defect in the certificate of service to the trial court. Specifically, Foy also filed an August 18, 2020 motion for default judgment alleging the state‘s inadequate certificate of service required the trial court to strike the state‘s motion to dismiss. The state responded to Foy‘s motion and though it conceded its certificate of service did not contain the method of service, it noted that Foy had already filed a responsive document to the motion to dismiss, indicating service had been completed. Thus, while the state did not technically comply with the requirements of
{16} Additionally, Foy argues the trial court did not serve him a copy of the August 5, 2021 decision and entry granting the state‘s motion to dismiss. However, Foy filed a timely notice of appeal from the decision and entry, so his assertion that he was not served lacks merit.
{17} We overrule Foy‘s third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error.
V. Sixth Assignment of Error – Motion for Default Judgment
{18} In his sixth assignment of error, Foy argues the trial court erred in determining his August 18, 2020 motion for default judgment is moot. As noted above, Foy‘s August 18, 2020 motion asked the trial court to strike the state‘s motion to dismiss for its alleged failure to comply with
{19}
{20} For the reasons outlined in our resolution of Foy‘s third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error, any error in the state‘s certificate of service attached to its motion to dismiss was harmless error. Thus, we do not agree with Foy that the state should be deemed not to have responded to his complaint. Because the state filed a motion to dismiss and Foy
VI. Seventh Assignment of Error – Jurisdictional Defect
{21} In his seventh and final assignment of error, Foy argues that this court should declare him a wrongfully imprisoned individual. More specifically, Foy asserts that because he is alleging a jurisdictional defect in the underlying criminal indictment and that jurisdiction can never be waived, this court should act to vacate the void judgment of his conviction in the underlying criminal case and declare him wrongfully imprisoned.
{22} Foy relies on the general principle that “‘[b]ecause subject matter jurisdiction goes to the power of the court to adjudicate the merits of a case, it can never be waived and may be challenged at any time.‘” State v. Chavis, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-557, 2015-Ohio-5549, ¶ 17, quoting State v. Smith, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1059, 2007-Ohio-2873, ¶ 9, citing Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, ¶ 11. However, this court‘s jurisdiction is limited to “review and affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the courts of record inferior to the court of appeals within the district.” (Emphasis added.)
VII. Disposition
{23} Based on the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not err in granting the state‘s motion to dismiss Foy‘s complaint seeking a declaration that he is a wrongfully imprisoned individual. Having overruled Foy‘s seven assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN and MENTEL, JJ., concur.