[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 Castn er, appeals from the judgment o f the Summit County Court of Common Pl eas. This Court affirms.

I. {¶2} Castner was indicted on one count of theft from a person in a p rotected class. She was arraigned on that charge a nd ordered not to have contact wi th the victim. Yet, she later sent text messages to the victim about the case. The prosecutor ref erenced those messages at a pretrial

that occurred about two weeks befo re her scheduled trial date. The prosecutor advised the court, Castner, and her counsel, that new charges would likely be file d the following week due to the messages Castner had sent the victim. {¶3} Two days before trial, a supplem ental indictment issued, chargi ng Castner with one

count of intimidation of a victim in a criminal case. The cour t held a hearing that same day, seeking to arraign Castner on the new charge. While her attorney atten ded the hearing, Castner did not.2

The attorney indicated that Castner was unavailable. He notifi ed the court that he had explained her additional charge to her. H e also notified the court that the defense had received the evidence related to her new charge and was prepared to “go forward on th is charge at the trial [in two days].” Following the hearing, the court issued a journal entry, indica ting that Castner (through counsel) had waived the reading of the s upplemental 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 Castne r 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 pris on. The court also ordered her to pay the victim $1,000 in restitution. {¶5} Castner now appeals from her convi ctions and raises one assignm ent 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 convic tion for intimidation

of a victim in a criminal case is void because she was never se rved with the supplemental indictment or arraigned on t hat charge. We disagree. {¶7} “Personal jurisdiction is a que stion of law that appellate cour ts 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 to3

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 cou rt 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 matte r, the court acquires jurisdiction over a person by lawfully issued process, followed by the arres t 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 ov er him[ or her].” (Internal citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 36. {¶9} Castner argues that her convi ction for intimid ation of a victim in a criminal case is void because she was neither personally served with a copy of h er supplemental indictment, nor arraigned on that charge. She notes that the service of proces s portion of her supplemental indictment summons is blank, and the record reflects that she w as out of town when the sheriff attempted to serve her. Further, she takes issue with the tria l court’s determination that she (through counsel) waived the reading of the supplemental indict ment, as well as any defect in service, and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. She n otes that her attorney never explicitly waived a reading of the supplemen tal 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 th e court scheduled two days before trial for the purpose of arraigning Castner on her supplemental charge. Defense counsel specifically indicated tha t Castner was aware of her ne w charge, the defense was in4

possession of the evidence rela ted to that charge, and the defe nse was prepared to “go forward on this charge at the trial [in t wo days].” Assuming without deci ding that his statements were not

sufficient to waive the issue o f personal jurisdiction, the rec ord reflects that Ca stner appeared for trial, with counsel, and did not object on the basis of persona l 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 assi gnment of error is overruled.

III. {¶11} Castner’s sole assignment of e rror is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Comm on Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting 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 consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file s tamped by the Clerk of the Cour t 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 m ake 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. DIMARTI NO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.