State v. Farley , 2013 Ohio 5517 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Farley, 2013-Ohio-5517.]
    COURT OF APPEALS
    MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    STATE OF OHIO                                     JUDGES:
    Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P. J.
    Plaintiff-Appellee                        Hon. John W. Wise, J.
    Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
    -vs-
    Case Nos. CT2013-0026 and
    DONNA FARLEY                                                CT2013-0029
    Defendant-Appellant                       OPINION
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                       Criminal Appeal from the County Court,
    Case Nos. CRB 1300218 and CRB
    1300091
    JUDGMENT:                                      Affirmed
    DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                        December 16, 2013
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellee                         For Defendant-Appellant
    D. MICHAEL HADDOX                              DONNA FARLEY
    PROSECUTING ATTORNEY                           7811 Poverty Ridge
    27 North Fifth Street, Suite 2                 Blue Rock, Ohio 43720
    Zanesville, Ohio 43701
    Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0026 and CT2013-0029                                     2
    Wise, J.
    {¶1}   Appellant Donna Farley appeals her conviction and sentence on multiple
    counts of Dog at Large, entered in the Muskingum County Court following a plea of no
    contest.
    {¶2}   Appellee is the State of Ohio.
    STATEMENTS OF FACTS AND CASE
    {¶3}   On January 31, 2013, Defendant-Appellant Donna J. Farley was charged
    with nine (9) counts of Dog at Large, in violation of R.C. §955.22. (See CRB 1300091).
    {¶4}   Appellant was arraigned on February 13, 2013, at which time she entered
    a plea of No Contest, and the case was scheduled for sentencing August 20, 2013.
    {¶5}   Subsequently, on March 13, 2013, Appellant was charged with five (5)
    new counts of Dog at Large, in violation of R.C. §955.22. (See CRB 1300218).
    {¶6}   On April 22, 2013, Appellant appeared for trial. Prior to trial, Appellant
    engaged in a dialogue with the trial court, arguing that certain Uniform Commercial
    Code (UCC) resolutions stripped the trial court of jurisdiction over her.
    {¶7}   The trial court treated Appellant’s arguments as a motion challenging the
    court’s jurisdiction over her and denied the motion. Appellant then proceeded to enter a
    plea of No Contest. The trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced her in both
    cases to fines and costs on each count.
    {¶8}   Appellant now appeals, setting forth the following Assignment of Error:
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
    {¶9}   “I. APPELLANT'S CONVICTION OF DOG AT LARGE R.C.955.22 (14
    COUNTS) WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE NEW, LEGAL, LAWFUL AND UNREBUTTED
    Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2013-0026 and CT2013-0029                                       3
    UCC FILINGS (UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE) THAT HAVE CANCELLED
    GOVERNMENT CHARTERS.”
    I.
    {¶10} In her sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues that the trial court did
    not have jurisdiction over her in this matter. We disagree.
    {¶11} In her pro se brief, Appellant maintains that she “never gave her consent
    to be governed.” Appellant cites to a blank, five-page document captioned “Courtesy
    Notice” which appears to be the product of “The One People’s Public Trust”. Appellant
    argues that such document provided the trial court with information of “the new legal,
    lawful and unrebutted landscape ushered in last year with the UCC filings”.
    {¶12} We note that similar “sovereign citizen” arguments have been raised in
    various federal court actions by pro se litigants, albeit unsuccessfully. See, e.g., United
    States v. Benabe, 
    654 F.3d 753
    , 767 (7th Cir.2011) (“Regardless of an individual's
    claimed status of descent, be it as a ‘sovereign citizen,’ a ‘secured-party creditor,’ or a
    ‘flesh-and-blood human being,’ that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts”).
    {¶13} Furthermore, “the U.C.C. has no bearing on criminal subject matter
    jurisdiction.” United States v. Mitchell, 
    405 F. Supp. 2d 602
    (D.Md.2005). See also Van
    Hazel v. Luoma, E.D.Mich. No. 05–CV–73401–DT (Oct. 27, 2005) (noting that other
    courts have rejected similar jurisdictional claims as frivolous, and holding that “Petitioner
    cannot divest the State of Michigan of jurisdiction to prosecute him of a criminal offense
    simply by declaring a security interest in himself pursuant to the Uniform Commercial
    Code”).
    Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2013-0026 and CT2013-0029                                   4
    {¶14} Upon review, we find no legal authority to support Appellant’s arguments
    and find the trial court did not err in dismissing her motion and entering a finding of
    guilty upon her pleas of no contest.
    {¶15} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the County Court of
    Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed.
    By: Wise, J.
    Farmer, P. J., and
    Delaney, J., concur.
    ___________________________________
    HON. JOHN W. WISE
    ___________________________________
    HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
    ___________________________________
    HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
    JWW/d 1118
    Muskingum County, Case No. CT2013-0026 and CT2013-0029                          5
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    STATE OF OHIO                             :
    :
    Plaintiff-Appellee                 :
    :
    -vs-                                      :         JUDGMENT ENTRY
    :
    DONNA FARLEY                              :
    :
    Defendant-Appellant                :         Case Nos. CT2013-0026 and
    :                   CT2013-0029
    For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
    judgment of the County Court of Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed.
    Costs assessed to Appellant.
    ___________________________________
    HON. JOHN W. WISE
    ___________________________________
    HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
    ___________________________________
    HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CT2013-0026, CT2013-0029

Citation Numbers: 2013 Ohio 5517

Judges: Wise

Filed Date: 12/16/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014