Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Carpenter
Citations: 688 N.E.2d 14; 116 Ohio App. 3d 292Docket: No. 96-JE-8.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; December 5, 1996; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Robert Francis Carpenter appeals a judgment from the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas that denied his motion to vacate his criminal conviction due to alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction stemming from a defective indictment. Carpenter was arrested on January 19, 1988, for the murder of Kevin Burkes, with charges including aggravated murder, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery based on an indictment that stated the offenses occurred in Jefferson County. He pled not guilty initially but later accepted a negotiated plea on September 13, 1988, which involved amending the indictment and pleading guilty to murder, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery without specifications. He was sentenced on December 22, 1989, to concurrent prison terms. Carpenter filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief in 1993, claiming he was unaware of the life sentence implications of his plea and requesting protections related to his codefendants. The court dismissed this motion, noting Carpenter had testified he understood the plea terms. In 1996, he filed a second pro se motion for relief from judgment, again seeking an evidentiary hearing, which was also overruled without hearing. His appeal, filed on February 23, 1996, argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing on his Civ.R. 60(B) motion, contending that the indictment's alleged defect deprived the court of jurisdiction, making the judgment void. He cites R.C. 2941.06 for the required form of an indictment, asserting the indictment did not specify that the crimes occurred within the court's jurisdiction. The initial and amended indictments presented to the grand jury were not defective and conformed to R.C. 2941.06, rendering the appellant's claim of a void judgment due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction unfounded. The trial court did not err in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion, as established in State v. Kapper, where the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a petition for post-conviction relief may be dismissed without a hearing if the record shows the petitioner is not entitled to relief and lacks sufficient evidentiary documents. Although the appellant's motion was labeled as a Civ.R. 60(B) motion, it was essentially a post-conviction relief petition under R.C. 2953.21, and the rationale from Kapper applies here. The appellant did not demonstrate entitlement to relief or provide documentation supporting such a claim. Consequently, the trial court's decision to forgo an evidentiary hearing was justified. The assignment of error was deemed meritless, and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.