State v. HelserState v. Helser
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Debra Helser, appeals the judgment of the Lima Municipal Court denying her
{¶2} On March 18, 2007, Helser was charged by complaint with one count of violation of a protection order in violation of
{¶3} In December 2007, Helser, being represented by counsel, withdrew her not guilty plea and entered a plea of no contest. The trial court then sentenced Helser to two years of community control and a 180 day jail term, with all 180
{¶4} In September 2008, Helser filed a motion to withdraw her no contest plea pursuant to
{¶5} In October 2008, the trial court denied Helser‘s
This matter is before the Court as Defendant seeks to withdraw her previously entered plea of no contest entered on December 20, 2008 at which time the defendant was found guilty and sentenced.
* * *
The filing by the defendant herein is abundantly vague. First, what Judge Warren may have done on May 18, 2007 has little to do with the proposition there was an order issued by Magistrate Kerber of the Common Pleas Court on May 7, 2007 and the offense was said to occur on May 17, 2008, i.e. the Order appears to be active on May 17, 2008. Second, where is the transcript referred in the filing? Third, there is no order from Judge Warren included or even a direct quote from an Order. * * * Fifthly, there are no double-jeopardy issues. The Common Pleas case, James v. Helser, CV 2007 0481 was a civil case (emphasis added).
The filing * * * is overruled.
(Oct. 2008 Order).
{¶6} It is from this judgment that Helser appeals, presenting the following pro se assignments of error for our review.2 3
Assignment of Error No. I
THIS MISUNDERSTANDING OF THAT [SIC] FACTS CAUSED THIS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO HAVE HER U.S.C.A. [SIC] FIFTH AMENDMENT: [SIC] “RIGHT NOT TO BE PLACED TWICE IN JEPARDY [SIC] FOR THE SAME OFFENCE” [SIC] VIOLATED FOR A CHARGE THAT SHE WAS NOT GUILTY OF, BY [SIC] THE FACTS’ [SIC].
Assignment of Error No. II
CLEARLY THE PROTECTION ORDER WAS FILED IN ALLEN COUNTY DOMESTIC DIVISION. THE SITUATION OCCURRED IN ADA, OHIO AS BOTH PARTIES CLAIMED 1160 RESEVOIR RD. AS THERE [SIC] PLACE OF RESIDENCE, [SIC] NEGATES THE CITY COURT FROM ANY JURISDICTION OVER 2007CRB1434-A.
{¶7} Before addressing Helser‘s assignments of error, we must first address the State‘s argument that Helser‘s appeal should be dismissed for being
{¶8}
{¶9} Due to the nature of Helser‘s arguments, we elect to address her assignments of error together.
Assignments of Error Nos. I and II
{¶10} In her first assignment of error, Helser argues that the trial court‘s denial of her
{¶11} In her second assignment of error, Helser argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the criminal charge against her, as the alleged violation occurred in Ada, Ohio, outside the Lima city limits, and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of Lima Municipal Court. Furthermore, Helser argues that the trial court‘s denial of her
{¶12} “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment.” State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 1996-Ohio-337, syllabus. Accordingly, res judicata will serve to bar all claims raised in a
{¶13} Here, Helser did not assert any error regarding a double jeopardy violation or the trial court‘s lack of jurisdiction at the time she entered her no contest plea, nor did she directly appeal her December 2007 conviction. Accordingly, because Helser was or should have been aware of these alleged errors, and failed to raise them in a prior proceeding, she was barred by res judicata from raising them in her
{¶14} Although we have found that Helser‘s claims are barred by res judicata, we summarily note that Helser‘s assignments of error also fail on the merits. First, there can be no double jeopardy violation, because any alleged finding by the court of common pleas at the final CPO hearing that Helser did not harass or stalk in violation of the ex parte CPO would have only been a finding in a civil case, and, therefore, would not be a finding of criminal innocence to bar a retrial on the same issue. See State v. Gustafson, 76 Ohio St.3d 425, 435, 1996-Ohio-299. Furthermore, Lima Municipal Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, as the court retains jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses committed within Allen County, see
{¶15} Accordingly, we overrule Helser‘s first and second assignments of error.
{¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
/jlr