Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-21-2021
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO v. DONNA M. CASTNER
Case Number: 29704
Judge: Donna J Carr
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney: SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Akron, Ohio - Criminal defense attorney represented Defendant charged with a theft from a person in a protected class.
Castner was indicted on one count of theft from a person in a protected class. She
was arraigned on that charge and ordered not to have contact with the victim. Yet, she later sent
text messages to the victim about the case. The prosecutor referenced those messages at a pretrial
that occurred about two weeks before her scheduled trial date. The prosecutor advised the court,
Castner, and her counsel, that new charges would likely be filed the following week due to the
messages Castner had sent the victim.
{¶3} Two days before trial, a supplemental indictment issued, charging Castner with one
count of intimidation of a victim in a criminal case. The court held a hearing that same day, seeking
to arraign Castner on the new charge. While her attorney attended the hearing, Castner did not. 2
The attorney indicated that Castner was unavailable. He notified the court that he had explained
her additional charge to her. He also notified the court that the defense had received the evidence
related to her new charge and was prepared to “go forward on this charge at the trial [in two days].”
Following the hearing, the court issued a journal entry, indicating that Castner (through counsel)
had waived the reading of the supplemental indictment, as well as any defect in service, and had
entered a plea of not guilty to the charge.
{¶4} A jury trial was held two days later, and the jury found Castner guilty on both
counts. The court sentenced her on each count and ordered her sentences to run concurrently for
a total of six months in prison. The court also ordered her to pay the victim $1,000 in restitution.
{¶5} Castner now appeals from her convictions and raises one assignment of error for
review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR INTIMIDATION IS VOID
BECAUSE APPELLANT DONNA CASTNER WAS NEVER SERVED WITH
THE SUPPLEMENTAL INDICTMENT OR ARRAIGNED ON THE CHARGE
IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL RULE 10 AND THE RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS.
{¶6} In her sole assignment of error, Castner argues that her conviction for intimidation
of a victim in a criminal case is void because she was never served with the supplemental
indictment or arraigned on that charge. We disagree.
{¶7} “Personal jurisdiction is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo.”
Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81, 2010-Ohio-2551, ¶ 27. “A de
novo review requires an independent review of the trial court’s decision without any deference to 3
the trial court’s determination.” State v. Consilio, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22761, 2006-Ohio-649, ¶
4.
{¶8} “A judgment or sentence is void only if it is rendered by a court that lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction over the case or personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” State v. Henderson,
161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784, ¶ 34. “In a criminal matter, the court acquires jurisdiction
over a person by lawfully issued process, followed by the arrest and arraignment of the accused
and his [or her] plea to the charge. A defendant also submits to the court’s jurisdiction if he [or
she] does not object to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over him[ or her].” (Internal citations
omitted.) Id. at ¶ 36.
{¶9} Castner argues that her conviction for intimidation of a victim in a criminal case is
void because she was neither personally served with a copy of her supplemental indictment, nor
arraigned on that charge. She notes that the service of process portion of her supplemental
indictment summons is blank, and the record reflects that she was out of town when the sheriff
attempted to serve her. Further, she takes issue with the trial court’s determination that she
(through counsel) waived the reading of the supplemental indictment, as well as any defect in
service, and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. She notes that her attorney never explicitly
waived a reading of the supplemental indictment at the hearing the court held two days before her
trial. She also notes that the court never asked her attorney to enter a plea on her behalf at that
hearing. Because she was neither served, nor arraigned on the supplemental indictment, Castner
argues, her conviction is void.
{¶10} As previously noted, defense counsel appeared at the hearing the court scheduled
two days before trial for the purpose of arraigning Castner on her supplemental charge. Defense
counsel specifically indicated that Castner was aware of her new charge, the defense was in 4
possession of the evidence related to that charge, and the defense was prepared to “go forward on
this charge at the trial [in two days].” Assuming without deciding that his statements were not
sufficient to waive the issue of personal jurisdiction, the record reflects that Castner appeared for
trial, with counsel, and did not object on the basis of personal jurisdiction. Because she submitted
to the court’s jurisdiction at trial without objection, she may not now argue that her conviction is
void for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Henderson at ¶ 36; Tari v. State, 117 Ohio St. 481, 491-
492 (1927). Castner’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Outcome: Castner’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: