STATE OF OHIO v. DONNA FARLEY
Case Nos. CT2013-0026 and CT2013-0029
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
December 16, 2013
2013-Ohio-5517
Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P. J., Hon. John W. Wise, J., Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee
D. MICHAEL HADDOX PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 27 North Fifth Street, Suite 2 Zanesville, Ohio 43701
For Defendant-Appellant
DONNA FARLEY 7811 Poverty Ridge Blue Rock, Ohio 43720
{¶1} Appellant Donna Farley appeals her conviction and sentence on multiple counts of Dog at Large, entered in the Muskingum County Court following a plea of no contest.
{¶2} Appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENTS OF FACTS AND CASE
{¶3} On January 31, 2013, Defendant-Appellant Donna J. Farley was charged with nine (9) counts of Dog at Large, in violation of
{¶4} Appellant was arraigned on February 13, 2013, at which time she entered a plea of No Contest, and the case was scheduled for sentencing August 20, 2013.
{¶5} Subsequently, on March 13, 2013, Appellant was charged with five (5) new counts of Dog at Large, in violation of
{¶6} On April 22, 2013, Appellant appeared for trial. Prior to trial, Appellant engaged in a dialogue with the trial court, arguing that certain Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) resolutions stripped the trial court of jurisdiction over her.
{¶7} The trial court treated Appellant‘s arguments as a motion challenging the court‘s jurisdiction over her and denied the motion. Appellant then proceeded to enter a plea of No Contest. The trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced her in both cases to fines and costs on each count.
{¶8} Appellant now appeals, setting forth the following Assignment of Error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶9} “I. APPELLANT‘S CONVICTION OF DOG AT LARGE
I.
{¶10} In her sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over her in this matter. We disagree.
{¶11} In her pro se brief, Appellant maintains that she “never gave her consent to be governed.” Appellant cites to a blank, five-page document captioned “Courtesy Notice” which appears to be the product of “The One People‘s Public Trust“. Appellant argues that such document provided the trial court with information of “the new legal, lawful and unrebutted landscape ushered in last year with the UCC filings“.
{¶12} We note that similar “sovereign citizen” arguments have been raised in various federal court actions by pro se litigants, albeit unsuccessfully. See, e.g., United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir.2011) (“Regardless of an individual‘s claimed status of descent, be it as a ‘sovereign citizen,’ a ‘secured-party creditor,’ or a ‘flesh-and-blood human being,’ that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts“).
{¶13} Furthermore, “the U.C.C. has no bearing on criminal subject matter jurisdiction.” United States v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp.2d 602 (D.Md.2005). See also Van Hazel v. Luoma, E.D.Mich. No. 05-CV-73401-DT (Oct. 27, 2005) (noting that other courts have rejected similar jurisdictional claims as frivolous, and holding that “Petitioner cannot divest the State of Michigan of jurisdiction to prosecute him of a criminal offense simply by declaring a security interest in himself pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code“).
{¶15} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the County Court of Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Farmer, P. J., and
Delaney, J., concur.
HON. JOHN W. WISE
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
JWW/d 1118
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the County Court of Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to Appellant.
HON. JOHN W. WISE
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY