[Cite as State v. Taylor, 2015-Ohio-3805.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 LUCAS COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-15-1116 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201401705 

v. 

Laron D. Taylor DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: September 18, 2015 

* * * * * 

 Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

 Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Laron D. Taylor, pro se. 

* * * * * 

PIETRYKOWSKI, J. 

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common 

Pleas, denying appellant’s, Laron Taylor, R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief. 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 
2.

{¶ 2} On March 3, 2014, criminal complaints were filed against appellant in the 

Toledo Municipal Court, alleging multiple drug offenses. The Toledo Municipal Court 

docket entry for that date indicates “Affidavit Filed 03/03/2014 20:26. Warrant returned, 

service made. Defendant arrested and booked into Lucas County Corrections Center on 

03/03/2014 16:00.” On March 4, 2014, appellant was arraigned, a public defender was 

assigned, appellant entered an initial plea of not guilty, and bond was set. On April 3, 

2014, appellant consented to be bound over to the Lucas County Grand Jury. On April 

30, 2014, the Lucas County Grand Jury returned a four-count indictment against 

appellant, charging him with (1) aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 

2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(c), a felony of the second degree, (2) aggravated trafficking in 

drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(d), a felony of the first degree, (3) 

possession of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(6)(a), a felony of the fifth 

degree, and (4) trafficking in heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(6)(b), a 

felony of the fourth degree. 

{¶ 3} On July 9, 2014, appellant, in open court, withdrew his initial plea of not 

guilty, and also withdrew his pending motions to suppress, and entered a plea of no 

contest to count one, aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the second degree, and 

count four as amended to trafficking in heroin, a felony of the fifth degree. The 

remaining two counts were nolled. The trial court proceeded immediately to sentencing, 

and ordered appellant to serve a three-year prison term on count one, and an 11-month 
3.

prison term on count four. The court further ordered those terms to be served 

concurrently. Appellant did not file a direct appeal from his conviction. 

{¶ 4} On January 14, 2015, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief 

pursuant to R.C. 2953.21. Appellant’s petition centered on the theory that the trial court 

lacked jurisdiction over the criminal matter because the initial warrant issued by the 

Toledo Municipal Court was defective because it was issued without an independent 

probable cause determination as highlighted in State v. Hoffman, 141 Ohio St.3d 428, 

2014-Ohio-4795, 25 N.E.3d 993. This petition was denied by the trial court on April 2, 

2015. 

Assignments of Error

{¶ 5} Appellant has timely appealed the trial court’s April 2, 2015 judgment, 

assigning two errors for our review: 

(1) THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY 

LITIGATING A MATTER WITH WHICH THE TRIAL COURT DID 

NOT ENJOY SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OF. 

(2) The Post-Conviction/Trial Ct., Abused its Discretion to the 

prejudice of the Relator/Appellant by litigating a matter with which the 

Post-Conviction/Trial Ct., did not possess the Ohio Constitution’s Article 

(IV) section (1) JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION, POWER 

VESTED THEREIN TO ACT AS U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE 

(III) SECTION (II) JUDICIAL OFFICER(S). 
4.

Because appellant’s assignments of error are interrelated, we will address them together. 

{¶ 6} At the outset, we note that a trial court’s decision granting or denying a 

postconviction relief petition is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gondor, 112 

Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 58. 

{¶ 7} In his pro se brief on appeal, appellant makes similar arguments to the ones 

that he raised in the trial court, namely that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the 

warrants issued by the Toledo Municipal Court were invalid. 

{¶ 8} However, in this case, the validity of the warrants from the Toledo 

Municipal Court is inconsequential to the jurisdiction of the Lucas County Court of 

Common Pleas. Even if the warrants were issued without a determination of probable 

cause, and thus appellant’s arrest was unconstitutional—a determination we expressly do 

not make—the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas still had jurisdiction over 

appellant’s criminal case because appellant was indicted by the Lucas County Grand 

Jury. See Simpson v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 71, 203 N.E.2d 324 (1964) (“The 

jurisdiction of a trial court is invoked by a valid indictment or information and is not 

dependent upon the validity of the process by which the accused is originally 

apprehended. Thus, the illegality of the process by which one is taken into custody does 

not affect the validity of a subsequent conviction based upon a proper indictment or 

information.”). Thus, because a valid indictment was entered, the trial court had 

jurisdiction, and appellant’s exhortations that his conviction is void are without merit. 

{¶ 9} Accordingly, appellant’s assignments of error are not well-taken. 
5.

{¶ 10} For the foregoing reasons, we find that substantial justice was done the 

party complaining and the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is 

affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal. 

Judgment affirmed. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. 

_______________________________ 

Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.