[Cite as State v. Bell, 2023-Ohio-2073.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 vs.

WILLIE BELL,

 Defendant-Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-220372

TRIAL NO. B-0700957A

O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 23, 2023 

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Willie Bell, pro se.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

KINSLEY, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Willie Bell appeals the judgment of the Hamilton 

County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his “Motion to Vacate Sentence Impartial 

on Counts 1 & 3 and To Appoint Counsel to Furthermore Liberate Claim.” For the 

following reasons, we affirm the court’s judgment.

Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} In 2007, Bell was convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery, each 

with an accompanying gun specification, and one count of failure to comply with the 

order or signal of a police officer. The trial court imposed an aggregate 22-year prison 

term for these offenses. We affirmed Bell’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. 

State v. Bell, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-070804 and C-070805 (Sept. 24, 2008). In 

2014 and 2018, Bell filed postconviction motions seeking to vacate his convictions and 

sentences, arguing that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his case 

due to “a lack of a charging instrument” or a deficient charging instrument. The 

common pleas court denied both these motions, specifically finding that because a 

proper indictment had been filed, the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over 

the proceedings leading to Bell’s convictions. Bell did not appeal the denial of these 

motions. 

{¶3} In Bell’s most recent postconviction motion, he seeks to vacate his 

convictions and sentences for counts one and three of aggravated robbery. Although Bell

raises numerous grounds for relief in his motion, most of his claims either relate to his 

arguments that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate 

the charges against him or that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his 

case. Additionally, he also raises statutory challenges to his sentences.

{¶4} On appeal from the dismissal of his motion, Bell raises nine assignments 

of error. We address his assignments of error out of order for ease of discussion.

Claims Reviewable and Subject to Dismissal Under R.C. 2953.21 et seq.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

{¶5} Bell’s second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error 

essentially restate the claims made in his motion that his trial counsel was 

constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate the charges against him and may 

thus fairly be read to challenge the dismissal of those claims. 

{¶6} It is unclear from the record what standard the common pleas court 

used to review Bell’s motion. But the Ohio Supreme Court has held that “[w]here a 

criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal, files a motion seeking 

vacation or correction of his or her sentence on the basis that his or her constitutional 

rights have been violated, such a motion is a petition for postconviction relief as 

defined in R.C. 2953.21.” State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997); 

State v. Parker, 157 Ohio St.3d 460, 2019-Ohio-3848, 137 N.E.3d 1151, ¶ 16. Because 

Bell is seeking to vacate two of his convictions on constitutional grounds, the common 

pleas court should have reviewed Bell’s motion as a postconviction petition under the 

standards provided by R.C. 2953.21 et seq. 

{¶7} Bell filed his motion well after the expiration of the time prescribed by

R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). However, a common pleas court may entertain a late 

postconviction petition if the petition satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 

2953.23. But Bell cannot satisfy those requirements as the record does not 

demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts underlying 

his postconviction claims or that his claims were predicated upon a new or 

retrospectively applicable federal or state right recognized by the United States 

Supreme Court since the time for filing a postconviction petition had expired. Because 

Bell satisfied neither the time strictures of R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) nor the jurisdictional 

requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A), the postconviction statutes did not confer upon the 

common pleas court jurisdiction to entertain Bell’s postconviction claims related to

his trial counsel’s ineffectiveness, and those claims were subject to dismissal. See R.C. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

2953.21(D) and (F) and 2953.23(A). Accordingly, we overrule the second, third, 

fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error. 

Res Judicata Bars Challenge to Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 

{¶8} In his first assignment of error, Bell contends that the common pleas 

court erred by dismissing his claims challenging the trial court’s subject-matter

jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings leading to his convictions. We disagree. 

Although a challenge to a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, 

see Dikong v. Ohio Supports, Inc., 2013-Ohio-33, 98 N.E.2d 949, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.), it may 

not be repeatedly attacked. “Once [a] jurisdictional issue has been fully litigated and 

determined by a court that has authority to pass upon the issues, said determination 

is res judicata in a collateral action and can only be attacked directly by appeal.” State 

v. Stowers, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150095, 2015-Ohio-4846, ¶ 11, citing State ex rel. 

Acres v. Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Servs., 123 Ohio St.3d 54, 2009-Ohio-4176, 914 

N.E.2d 170. Here, the common pleas court had previously considered Bell’s challenge 

to the trial court’s jurisdiction based on a deficient charging instrument and, finding 

that a proper indictment had been filed in the case, determined that the trial court had 

subject-matter jurisdiction over Bell’s case. Because Bell did not appeal the common 

pleas court’s denial of his motions, his challenges to the trial court’s subject-matter

jurisdiction are barred by res judicata. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is

overruled.

No Jurisdiction to Review Claims Challenging Sentences

{¶9} Bell’s seventh and eighth assignments of error restate the claims made 

in his motion that his sentences are contrary to law and thus may fairly be read to 

challenge the dismissal of those claims. Because we hold that the common pleas court 

lacked jurisdiction to consider these claims and properly dismissed them, we overrule 

these assignments of error. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

{¶10} Bell’s sentencing claims raised statutory and not constitutional challenges 

to his sentences, and thus were not reviewable under the standards provided by R.C. 

2953.21 et seq., governing the proceedings upon a petition for postconviction relief. See

R.C. 2953.21(A)(1) (requiring a postconviction petitioner to demonstrate a constitutional 

violation in the proceedings resulting in his conviction). Nor were the sentencing claims 

reviewable under the court’s jurisdiction to correct a void judgment. In State v.

Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784, 162 N.E.3d 776, the Ohio Supreme 

Court held that “[a] judgment or sentence is void only if it is rendered by a court that 

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or personal jurisdiction over the 

defendant.” Id. at ¶ 43. “If [a] court has jurisdiction over the case and the person, any 

sentence based on an error in the court’s exercise of that jurisdiction is voidable.” Id. at 

¶ 37. 

{¶11} Here, the court had subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction 

over Bell. See Article IV, Section 4(A), Ohio Constitution; R.C. 2931.03; State v. Harper, 

160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, ¶ 25, quoting Smith v. Sheldon, 

157 Ohio St.3d 1, 2019-Ohio-1677, 131 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 8 (“[A] common pleas court has 

subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases.”); Henderson at ¶ 36, citing Tari v. State, 

117 Ohio St. 481, 490-491, 159 N.E. 594 (1927) (“The court acquires jurisdiction over a 

person by lawfully issued process, followed by the arrest and arraignment of the accused

and his plea to the charge” [and] where a defendant “does not object to the court’s 

exercise of jurisdiction over him.”). Because the court had jurisdiction over Bell and his 

criminal case, any error in imposing the sentences merely rendered Bell’s sentences

voidable and not subject to a collateral attack in a postconviction motion. See Henderson

at ¶ 43.

 Grounds Not Asserted in Postconviction Motion Are Waived
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

{¶12} Finally, Bell argues in his ninth assignment of error that the trial court 

erred by failing to inform him of his right to appeal his convictions. But it is well-settled 

that issues or arguments not raised in the lower court are considered waived and may 

not be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108499, 

2020-Ohio-1026, ¶ 13; State v. Jones, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150312 and C-150303, 

2016-Ohio-5109, ¶ 5. Because Bell did not raise this ground in his postconviction motion, 

we may not consider it now. Accordingly, his ninth assignment of error is overruled.

{¶13} In conclusion, because the postconviction statutes did not confer 

jurisdiction upon the common pleas court to consider Bell’s claims challenging the 

constitutional effectiveness of his counsel or his statutory challenges to his sentences, 

and because Bell’s claim challenging the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction was 

barred by res judicata, we affirm the lower court’s judgment dismissing Bell’s motion. 

Judgment affirmed.

BERGERON, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.