{¶ 2} On Oсtober 10, 2002, Alex Schooler was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. On October 11, 2002, Detective Wesseler of the Beavercreek Police Department completed a Cоmplaint and Affidavit, charging Schooler with carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} That same day, Schooler appeared before an acting judge in the Fairborn Municipal Court. The bailiff indicated to the judge that the casе had been filed as a misdemeanor of the first degree. The court inquired of Schooler whether he wished to enter a plea, and Schooler proceeded to plead guilty to the charge. The court sentenced Schooler to sixty days of incarceration, all of which was suspended on the condition that Schooler have no future similar violation, and to pay a fine of $300.00.
{¶ 4} On October 17, 2002, based on the same circumstances alleged in the Complaint and Affidavit, Schooler was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon, a felony of the fourth degree. On February 28, 2003, Schooler filed a motion tо dismiss the charge on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court overruled the motion (and subsequently denied a motion for reconsideration), indicating that all of the records of the Fairborn Municipal Court demonstrated that the charge filed in that court was a felony charge, not a misdemeanor, and that the municipal court judge had accepted his guilty plea on the mistaken belief (as a result of misinformation from the bailiff) that a misdemeanor charge had been filed. The court reasoned that, because Schooler had been charged with a felony, the municipal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to dispose of the case by means of accepting a guilty plea. The court further noted that the transcript of the proceedings did not reflect that Schooler had, in fact, entered a guilty plea. Thus, the сourt found that Schooler was "not subjected to double jeopardy as the records of the Fairborn Municipal Court, through which the Court speaks, does [sic] not disclose a misdemeanor conviction."
{¶ 5} Schooler presents one assignment of error on appeal.
{¶ 6} "The trial court errored [sic] when it did not dismiss defendant's case on [the] ground of double jeopardy."
{¶ 7} Both the United States and Ohio Constitutions prohibit double jeopardy. United States v. Dixon (1993),
{¶ 8} Schoolеr claims that his conviction of carrying a concealed weapon, a felony of the fourth degree, constituted a second prosecution for the same offense. He argues that he had prеviously been convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in the municipal court. In response, the state "readily concedes that if the municipal court had subject matter jurisdiction to accept the guilty plea there would be Double Jeopardy issues implicated and the analysis put forth by the appellant in both Blockburger v. United States
(1932),
{¶ 9} We agree. Subject matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power and authority to decide particular types of cases on the merits and to render valid judgments therein.Morrison v. Steiner (1972),
{¶ 10} "The municipal сourt has jurisdiction to hear felony cases committed within its territory. In all felony cases, the court may conduct preliminary hearings and other necessary hearings prior to the indictment of the defendant or prior to the court's finding that there is probable and reasonable cause to hold or recognize the defendant to appear before a court of common pleas and may discharge, recognize, or commit the defendant."
{¶ 11} Thus, R.C.
{¶ 12} In the present case, the record demonstrates that the October 11, 2002, proceeding was an initial appearance. In misdemeanor cases, a defendant may enter a plea at the initial appearance. Crim.R. 5(A)(5). However, a felony defendant may not "be cаlled upon to plead either at the initial appearance or at a preliminary hearing." Id. Accordingly, under R.C.
{¶ 13} The record supports the trial court's conclusion that the state had brought a felony, not a misdemeаnor, charge against Schooler. Detective Wesseler's Complaint and Affidavit, filed on October 11, 2002, states that on October 10, 2002, Schooler carried a concealed weapon, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 14} Schooler makes much of the fact that the cover of his municipal court file had been altered. The state has conceded that a clerk had "whited out" the portions of the file cover that indicated that Schooler had entered а guilty plea in the municipal court and had received a sentence of a suspended jail term and a fine. Thus, the clerk has destroyed the portion of Schooler's municipal court record which supported his claim that he had entered a guilty plea and received a sentence from the municipal court. We are alarmed that a court employee would alter a court record in this manner, particularly in light of the fact that the Supreme Court of Ohio has repeatedly stated that "[a] court of record speaks only through its journal and not by oral pronouncement or mere written minute or memorandum." Schenley v.Kauth (1953),
{¶ 15} We acknowledge that, based on the transcript of the October 11, 2002, proceeding, it is apparent that Schooler had entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge and had been sеntenced by the municipal court. However, the record makes clear that the Complaint and Affidavit stated a felony charge against Schooler at the time of the initial appearance оn October 11, 2002. Even though the file cover originally indicated "M1," meaning that the carrying a concealed weapon charge was a misdemeanor of the first degree, there is no indication in the record thаt the state had actually filed a misdemeanor charge. The transcript of the October 11, 2002, proceeding merely demonstrates that the municipal court acted based on its mistaken belief that a misdemeanor, not a felony, charge had been filed against Schooler.
{¶ 16} A belief that the court has subject matter jurisdiction does not confer jurisdiction where none exists. Because Schooler had been charged with a felony, the Fairborn Municipal Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea on a misdemeanor charge of carrying a concealed weapon and to sеntence him on that charge at the initial appearance. A judgment rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void ab initio. State v. Saxon, Highland App. No. 02CA15,
{¶ 17} Schooler's assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 18} The judgment of conviction will be affirmed.
Grady, J. and Young, J., concur.