State v. Eberhart , 2014 Ohio 3259 ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Eberhart, 2014-Ohio-3259.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : Appellate Case Nos. 26045
: Appellate Case Nos. 26046
Plaintiff-Appellee :
: Trial Court Nos. 13-TRD-4313
v. : Trial Court Nos. 13-TRD-3776
:
JASON A. EBERHART : (Criminal Appeal from
: Miamisburg Municipal Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 25th day of July, 2014.
...........
CHRISTINE L. BURK, Atty. Reg. #0050559, 10 North First Street, Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JASON A. EBERHART, 9477 Eastbrook Drive, Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
Defendant-Appellant, pro se
.............
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} Jason A. Eberhart appeals pro se from his conviction and sentence in two related
cases for failing to display a license plate on his car, both misdemeanor violations of R.C.
4503.21.
{¶ 2} In his sole assignment of error, Eberhart challenges the trial court’s personal
jurisdiction over him.
{¶ 3} The record reflects that police twice observed Eberhart driving on a public road
without a license plate on his car. One incident occurred in Miamisburg. The other occurred in
Miami Township. On each occasion, a police officer stopped Eberhart and issued him a traffic
citation. Each citation charged a violation of R.C. 4503.21. Each citation also bore the signature
of the issuing officer, summoned Eberhart to appear in Miamisburg Municipal Court, and stated
that the issuing officer personally had served it on Eberhart.
{¶ 4} At his arraignment, Eberhart refused to enter a plea and challenged the trial
court’s personal jurisdiction. The trial court found that it had jurisdiction and entered a not-guilty
plea on his behalf. Eberhart subsequently filed a motion in which he again contested the trial
court’s jurisdiction over him. Therein, he identified himself as a “common-law citizen” and
claimed, among other things, that he was domiciled in Ohio but was not a resident of this state.
The trial court overruled the motion, concluding that it possessed both personal and
subject-matter jurisdiction. The issue of jurisdiction arose again at Eberhart’s December 2, 2013
bench trial on the two charges. At that time, Eberhart made clear he was not contesting territorial
or subject-matter jurisdiction. Rather, he was challenging only the trial court’s personal
jurisdiction. The trial court rejected his argument, and the case proceeded. Based on the
testimony of the officers who had issued the citations, the trial court found him guilty on both
charges of failing to display a license plate. The trial court sentenced Eberhart accordingly, and
he timely appealed.
{¶ 5} Eberhart’s assignment of error states: “The Trial Court erred in finding the
appellant guilty because the Trial Court incorrectly proceeded as an administrative hearing. There
was no evidence to conclude that there was a civil breach, there was no corpus delicti, and
3
therefore no crime had been committed, it was solely an administrative proceeding where the
judge was acting outside of a judicial capacity.”
{¶ 6} Despite the foregoing language, the body of Eberhart’s appellate brief plainly
challenges the trial court’s personal jurisdiction. He contends the trial court “failed to
acknowledge” his jurisdictional argument and failed to require proof of personal jurisdiction. We
are unpersuaded. The record reflects that Eberhart resided in the Miamisburg area. He committed
one offense in Miamisburg and the other in Miami Township. More importantly for present
purposes, the officers who observed him driving without a license plate both personally served
him with a complaint and summons in the form of a uniform traffic ticket. See Traf.R. 3(A) (“In
traffic cases, the complaint and summons shall be the ‘Ohio Uniform Traffic Ticket[.]’”). Service
of these tickets on Eberhart gave the Miamisburg Municipal Court personal jurisdiction over him.
See, e.g., Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 156, 464 N.E.2d 538 (1984) (recognizing that
personal jurisdiction may be acquired by service of process on a defendant); State v. Gunnell,
10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-90, 2013-Ohio-3928, ¶ 10 (observing that service of a complaint
and summons in the form of a traffic ticket gives a municipal court personal jurisdiction);
Cleveland v. Kutash, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99509, 2013-Ohio-5124, ¶ 11 (“Personal
jurisdiction goes to the court’s authority to render judgment against a party to an action. In
contrast to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is conferred by statute, the court * * * acquires
personal jurisdiction over the defendant when * * * service of process is completed over the
defendant[.]”); State v. Zipfel, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-89-45, 1990 WL 71574 (June 1, 1990)
(“Appellant was charged with violations of both state and municipal laws and properly served
with notice of these offenses by the issuance of traffic citations (summons). * * * Therefore, the
4
municipal court had personal jurisdiction over the person of the appellant.”).
{¶ 7} Eberhart’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Miamisburg
Municipal Court is affirmed.
.............
FROELICH, P.J., and DONOVAN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Christine L. Burk
Jason A. Eberhart
Hon. Robert W. Rettich, III