[Cite as State v. Castner, 2021-Ohio-1048.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

DONNA M. CASTNER 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 29704 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE No. CR 18 11 3971 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: March 31, 2021 

 

CARR, Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Donna Castner, appeals from the judgment of the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} Castner was indicted on one count of theft from a person in a protected class. She 

was arraigned on that charge and ordered not to have contact with the victim. Yet, she later sent 

text messages to the victim about the case. The prosecutor referenced those messages at a pretrial 

that occurred about two weeks before her scheduled trial date. The prosecutor advised the court, 

Castner, and her counsel, that new charges would likely be filed the following week due to the 

messages Castner had sent the victim. 

{¶3} Two days before trial, a supplemental indictment issued, charging Castner with one 

count of intimidation of a victim in a criminal case. The court held a hearing that same day, seeking 

to arraign Castner on the new charge. While her attorney attended the hearing, Castner did not. 
2 

 

The attorney indicated that Castner was unavailable. He notified the court that he had explained 

her additional charge to her. He also notified the court that the defense had received the evidence 

related to her new charge and was prepared to “go forward on this charge at the trial [in two days].” 

Following the hearing, the court issued a journal entry, indicating that Castner (through counsel) 

had waived the reading of the supplemental indictment, as well as any defect in service, and had 

entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. 

{¶4} A jury trial was held two days later, and the jury found Castner guilty on both 

counts. The court sentenced her on each count and ordered her sentences to run concurrently for 

a total of six months in prison. The court also ordered her to pay the victim $1,000 in restitution. 

{¶5} Castner now appeals from her convictions and raises one assignment of error for 

review. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

THE APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR INTIMIDATION IS VOID 

BECAUSE APPELLANT DONNA CASTNER WAS NEVER SERVED WITH 

THE SUPPLEMENTAL INDICTMENT OR ARRAIGNED ON THE CHARGE 

IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL RULE 10 AND THE RIGHT TO DUE 

PROCESS. 

{¶6} In her sole assignment of error, Castner argues that her conviction for intimidation 

of a victim in a criminal case is void because she was never served with the supplemental 

indictment or arraigned on that charge. We disagree. 

{¶7} “Personal jurisdiction is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo.” 

Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81, 2010-Ohio-2551, ¶ 27. “A de 

novo review requires an independent review of the trial court’s decision without any deference to 
3 

 

the trial court’s determination.” State v. Consilio, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22761, 2006-Ohio-649, ¶ 

4. 

{¶8} “A judgment or sentence is void only if it is rendered by a court that lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction over the case or personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” State v. Henderson, 

161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784, ¶ 34. “In a criminal matter, the court acquires jurisdiction 

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

and his [or her] plea to the charge. A defendant also submits to the court’s jurisdiction if he [or 

she] does not object to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over him[ or her].” (Internal citations 

omitted.) Id. at ¶ 36. 

{¶9} Castner argues that her conviction for intimidation of a victim in a criminal case is 

void because she was neither personally served with a copy of her supplemental indictment, nor 

arraigned on that charge. She notes that the service of process portion of her supplemental 

indictment summons is blank, and the record reflects that she was out of town when the sheriff 

attempted to serve her. Further, she takes issue with the trial court’s determination that she 

(through counsel) waived the reading of the supplemental indictment, as well as any defect in 

service, and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. She notes that her attorney never explicitly 

waived a reading of the supplemental indictment at the hearing the court held two days before her 

trial. She also notes that the court never asked her attorney to enter a plea on her behalf at that 

hearing. Because she was neither served, nor arraigned on the supplemental indictment, Castner 

argues, her conviction is void. 

{¶10} As previously noted, defense counsel appeared at the hearing the court scheduled 

two days before trial for the purpose of arraigning Castner on her supplemental charge. Defense 

counsel specifically indicated that Castner was aware of her new charge, the defense was in 
4 

 

possession of the evidence related to that charge, and the defense was prepared to “go forward on 

this charge at the trial [in two days].” Assuming without deciding that his statements were not 

sufficient to waive the issue of personal jurisdiction, the record reflects that Castner appeared for 

trial, with counsel, and did not object on the basis of personal jurisdiction. Because she submitted 

to the court’s jurisdiction at trial without objection, she may not now argue that her conviction is 

void for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Henderson at ¶ 36; Tari v. State, 117 Ohio St. 481, 491-

492 (1927). Castner’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶11} Castner’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period 

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to 

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the 

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 
5 

 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 DONNA J. CARR 

 FOR THE COURT 

CALLAHAN, P. J. 

HENSAL, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

DONALD R. HICKS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.