State v. ParkerState v. Parker
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Douglas
Lead Opinion
{¶ 1} On January 12, 1995, Vincent Parker, appellee, was indicted on one count of assaulting a police officer. On February 22, 1995, appellee was indicted on three further counts. Count One charged appellee with aggravated murder with a felony-murder specification. Count Two charged appellee with aggravated
{¶ 2} On June 30,1995, in a proceeding before the trial court, appellee waived his right to a trial by jury and his right to a three-judge panel. Appellant nolled the count of possession of a weapon under disability and deleted the firearm specification from the aggravated robbery count. Appellee then entered pleas of guilty to the remaining charges as set forth in both indictments and was sentenced, by a single trial judge, to imprisonment for a term of twenty years to life on the aggravated murder charge with no possibility of parole for twenty years, three years’ actual incarceration on the firearm specification, to be served consecutively to the murder sentence, and eighteen months for the assault charge, to be served concurrently with the previous terms.
{¶ 3} On appeal, appellee claimed that, pursuant to
{¶4} The question certified by the court of appeals is, “[W]hen the State agrees not to pursue the death penalty in an aggravated murder case, but does not delete the death penalty specification, does the requirement that the proceedings be held by a three judge panel as set forth in
{¶ 5}
{¶ 6} “In any case in which a defendant waives his right to trial by jury and elects to be tried by the court under section 2945.05 of the Revised Code, any judge of the court in which the cause is pending shall proceed to hear, try, and
{¶ 7}
{¶ 8} “If the indictment contains one or more specifications that are not dismissed upon acceptance of a plea of guilty or no contest to the charge, or if pleas of guilty or no contest to both the charge and one or more specifications are accepted, a court composed of three judges shall: (a) determine whether the offense was aggravated murder or a lesser offense; and (b) if the offense is determined to have been a lesser offense, impose sentence accordingly; or (c) if the offense is determined to have been aggravated murder, proceed as. provided by law to determine the presence or absence of the specified aggravating circumstances and of mitigating circumstances, and impose sentence accordingly.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 9}
{¶ 10} In State ex rel. Henry v. McMonagle (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 543, 721 N.E.2d 1051, Henry, the criminal defendant, was originally indicted for aggravated murder with a death-penalty specification. The indictment was later amended to remove the death-penalty specification, and Henry pled guilty before and was sentenced by a single judge. Henry subsequently sought to vacate his conviction and sentence, alleging that he was entitled to a three-judge panel pursuant to
{¶ 12} The three-judge-panel requirement of
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Resnick and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent. Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
{¶ 13} The majority opinion is a classic example of deciding a case based on a hypertechnicality even though the result is contrary to a reasonable interpretation of the statute in question and does not serve the ends of justice.
{¶ 14} In 1995 during the proceedings at issue, appellee was represented by two attorneys. At that time he waived not only his right to trial by jury but also his right to be tried by a three-judge panel. The prosecuting attorney, appellee, the defense attorneys, and the judge agreed that the death penalty would not be sought or applied. Therefore, there was no need to assign two other judges for a three-judge panel. Now, after many years have passed, a majority of this court is setting aside the appellee’s guilty plea and conviction due to a questionable technical violation of
{¶ 15} A close reading of
{¶ 17} Although the majority’s rationale for distinguishing this case from Henry is not totally clear, it appears that the majority may view the lack of an amendment to the indictment as equivalent to leaving the door open for the prosecution to change its mind and revert to pursuing the death sentence at some future date.
{¶ 18} What the majority overlooks is that once a single judge begins the consideration of whether to accept a guilty plea, the death penalty is conclusively removed as an option with just as much finality as if the indictment had been amended. See State v. Griffin (1992), 73 Ohio App.3d 546, 553, 597 N.E.2d 1178. That is because once proceedings such as those in the instant case convene without a three-judge panel, the offense is no longer one that is “punishable with death” within the meaning of
{¶ 19} I fail to see what policy the majority is furthering when it allows appellee to renounce a plea agreement that was negotiated in good faith, with the benefit of counsel, when the death penalty was eliminated as an option just as surely as if the indictment had been amended. I believe that no substantial rights of appellee were affected by the circumstances under review in this case. The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed, and appellee’s guilty plea and sentence reinstated.
Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
{¶ 21} Of the various appellate cases that have analyzed the three-judge-panel requirement, I find the Ninth District Court of Appeals’ discussion in State v. Swiger (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 456, 708 N.E.2d 1033, to be the most instructive. In that case, Michael Swiger, who was tried for capital offenses before a single judge but ultimately convicted of noncapital crimes, sought postconviction relief asserting that his convictions were void. Like Parker in this case, Swiger waived his right to a jury trial and also waived his statutory entitlement to a three-judge panel. Nevertheless, Swiger argued that
{¶ 22} In rejecting Swiger’s challenge, the court of appeals refused to equate the lack of a three-judge panel with a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Dickinson correctly recognized that the term “jurisdiction” encompasses at least three distinct concepts: (1) subject matter jurisdiction, (2) jurisdiction over the person, and (3) jurisdiction over the particular case. Id. at 462, 708 N.E.2d 1033. “The third category of jurisdiction encompasses the trial court’s authority to determine a specific case within that class of cases that is within its subject matter jurisdiction. It is only when the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction that its judgment is void; lack of jurisdiction over the particular case merely renders the judgment voidable.” (Citation omitted.) Id. See, also, Browning v. Walters (Ind.App.1993), 620 N.E.2d 28, 31; In re Waite (1991), 188 Mich.App. 189, 199-200, 468 N.W.2d 912; Morrison v. Bestler (1990), 239 Ya. 166, 169, 387 S.E.2d 753.
{¶ 23} With these distinctions in mind, the Swiger court carefully analyzed which category of jurisdiction encompassed
{¶ 24} SwigePs persuasive analysis should dictate the outcome of this case. Not only does it accurately differentiate between the different jurisdictional categories, it is also consistent with this court’s implicit recognition that the term “jurisdictional” does not always mean subject matter jurisdiction. See State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766. In Pless, this court reversed a capital conviction based on the absence in the record of a written jury-trial waiver as required by
{¶ 25} “If the ‘jurisdiction’ to which the [Pless ] court referred were subject matter jurisdiction, by its very nature, it would be open to challenge at any time. By holding that this defect in the trial court’s ‘jurisdiction’ can be waived if not timely raised, the Supreme Court was apparently referring to something other than subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, it recognized this type of ‘jurisdiction’ in a situation [i.e., written waiver of a jury trial] analogous to defendant’s waiver of a three-judge panel.” Swiger, 125 Ohio App.3d at 465, 708 N.E.2d 1033.
{¶ 26} In light of the foregoing, I would hold that the trial court’s failure to convene a three-judge panel in this case was not a defect that deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Parker was charged with criminal offenses over which the court of common pleas had unquestioned subject matter jurisdiction; thus, “[a]ny subsequent error in the proceedings [was] only error in the ‘exercise of jurisdiction,’ as distinguished from the want of jurisdiction in the first instance.” In re Waite, 188 Mich.App. at 200, 468 N.W.2d 912. Parker’s convictions for the noncapital offenses were voidable at most and, in this case,
Notes
. Because this case involves a defendant convicted only of noncapital crimes, I express no opinion on the question whether a single judge could sentence a defendant to death notwithstanding a waiver of the three-judge panel. But, see, State v. Griffin (1992), 73 Ohio App.3d 546, 553, 597 N.E.2d 1178 (expressing the view that “the death penalty option was extinguished the moment [the defendant] was placed in jeopardy in the trial” before a single judge).