State v. Kinstle

[Cite as State v. Kinstle, 2010-Ohio-5409.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ALLEN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-10-29
v.
NICHOLAS KINSTLE, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Lima Municipal Court
Trial Court No. 10CRB00361
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: November 8, 2010
APPEARANCES:
Nicholas J. Kinstle, Appellant
Anthony L. Geiger for Appellee
Case No. 1-10-29
PRESTON, J.
{¶1} Appellant-defendant Nicholas J. Kinstle (“Kinstle”) appeals the
Lima Municipal Court judgments of conviction and sentence finding him guilty of
criminal trespass, resisting arrest and obstructing official business, and sentencing
him to serve 90 days in jail. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On February 8, 2010, Deputies from the Allen County Sheriff’s
Department arrived at 3920 Running Oak Trail, Elida, Allen County, Ohio, to
secure the property pursuant to a Writ of Possession issued by the Allen County
Court of Common Pleas. The Writ of Possession was issued on behalf of the
owner of the property, First Horizon Bank, and was executed to effectuate the
removal of Jeff Lunguy, who was occupying the residence at the time.
{¶3} Upon their arrival to the premises, the Deputies encountered Kinstle
who proceeded to interfere with the Deputies’ attempt to secure the property by
taking pictures of the Deputies and demanding that the Deputies identify
themselves. The Deputies repeatedly told Kinstle to leave the premises and
warned Kinstle that if he remained on the property, he would be arrested for
criminal trespass. Kinstle ignored the Deputies’ warnings and continued to take
pictures. Kinstle was advised that he was under arrest, but resisted the Deputies’
attempts to handcuff him. Eventually, the Deputies were able to successfully
place Kinstle in custody and escort him off the premises.
-2-
Case No. 1-10-29
{¶4} Kinstle was charged with the following offenses as a result of the
incident: resisting arrest in violation of R.C. 2921.33, a misdemeanor of the
second degree; obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31, a
misdemeanor of the second degree; and criminal trespass in violation of R.C.
2911.21(A), a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. On March 29, 2010, a bench
trial was held on the matter. Kinstle proceeded pro se. Four of the Deputies
present during the incident testified at trial. At the close of the evidence, the trial
court found Kinstle guilty on all three charges and sentenced him to serve ninety
days in jail and to pay the applicable fines associated with the offenses.
{¶5} Kinstle filed the instant appeal, asserting the following assignment
of error.
THE COURT IMPROPERLY GRANTED AN ORDER,
WITHOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND
AUTHORITY TO DO SO, BASED ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ACTIONS, VIOLATING APPELLANT KINSTLE’S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE AMENDMENTS
CITED IN THE LOWER CAUSE OF ACTION AFFORDED
TO HIM AS A SOVEREIGN AMERICAN CITIZEN,
SECURED PARTY CREDITOR.
{¶6} In his sole assignment of error, Kinstle “petitions” and “demands”
this Court “to transfer the lower court cause of action and instant appeal to the
venue of proper subject matter jurisdiction, the Federal District Court, for further
or actual hearing on the issues.” (Brief at 6.) It is apparent that Kinstle’s position
is based on his assertions that the Lima Municipal Court did not have subject
-3-
Case No. 1-10-29
matter jurisdiction to hear this case and that this Court also does not have subject
matter jurisdiction to review this case. After examining the relevant legal
authority governing the subject matter jurisdiction of the municipal court and the
appellate court, we disagree.
{¶7} The Lima Municipal Court is established by R.C. 1901.01(A).
Section 1901.02(B) of the Revised Code further establishes that the Lima
Municipal Court has jurisdiction within Allen County. With regard to jurisdiction
over criminal matters, R.C. 1901.20 provides that as a municipal court, the Lima
Municipal Court has subject matter jurisdiction “of the violation of any
misdemeanor committed within the limits of its territory.” R.C. 1901.20(A)(1).
{¶8} In the instant case, the charges against Kinstle stemmed from an
incident that occurred at 3920 Running Oak Trail, Elida in Allen County.
Moreover, each of the offenses charged against Kinstle was a misdemeanor
violation. Therefore, according to the statutory authority cited above, the Lima
Municipal Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter.
{¶9} Having concluded that this case was properly before the Lima
Municipal Court, we next address the authority of this Court to review this case.
The Ohio Constitution vests this Court with the jurisdiction to “review and affirm,
modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the courts of record inferior to the
court of appeals within the district.” Ohio Const., Art. IV, Sec 3(B)(2). Pursuant
-4-
Case No. 1-10-29
to R.C. 2501.01(C), Allen County, where the Lima Municipal Court is situated, is
within this Court’s district—the Third District. Based on the foregoing, it was
clearly within the bounds of this Court’s jurisdiction and authority to review the
case at hand.
{¶10} Kinstle’s assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶11} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and ROGERS, J., concur.
/jlr
-5-