[Cite as State v. Leggett, 2018-Ohio-1655.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 WILLIAMS COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WM-17-008 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. 96CR000032 

v. 

Jonathon D. Leggett DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: April 27, 2018 

* * * * * 

 Katherine J. Zartman, Williams County Prosecuting Attorney, 

 and Stacey S. Stiriz, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Jonathan D. Leggett, pro se. 

* * * * * 

 SINGER, J. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Jonathon D. Leggett, appeals from the September 28, 2017 

judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas denying appellant’s 

postconviction motion to set aside his alleged void judgment of conviction journalized on 

March 6, 2000. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. On appeal, appellant asserts 

the following assignments of error: 
2.

 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR #1: THE JUDGMENT IS VOID IN 

THE ABOVE STYLED CASE BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN 

PROCURED BY FRAUD AND IS THEREFORE VOID. THE 

JUDGMENT IS ALSO VOID BECAUSE OF IMPROPER PROCEDURE. 

 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR #2: THE CONVICTION IS VOID 

BECAUSE OF A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER OHIO 

CONST. ART I SEC. 16 AND U.S. CONST.AMEND.XIV. 

{¶ 2} The underlying facts in this case were set forth in State v. Leggett, 6th Dist. 

Williams No. WM-97-029, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 4078 (Sept. 4, 1998). This case 

began in 1992 with the death of a two-year-old child who was in the exclusive care of 

appellant at the time of her death. At that time, appellant entered an Alford plea, pursuant 

to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 27 L.Ed.2d 162, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970), to one 

count of negligent child endangerment and one count of obstructing justice. A nolle 

prosequi was entered as to the remaining crimes charged in the indictment. 

{¶ 3} The prosecutor continued to review the evidence and reevaluate the DNA 

evidence through specialized testing and eventually determined that appellant could not 

be ruled out as a contributor. Therefore, in 1996, appellant was indicted for rape and 

manslaughter regarding the child’s death. In 2000, appellant was convicted and 

sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape offense and 10-25 years of imprisonment for 

the involuntary manslaughter offense. The sentences were ordered to be served 
3.

consecutively. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. Leggett, 

6th Dist. Williams No. WM-00-003, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 470 (Feb. 8, 2002). 

{¶ 4} On appeal, we noted that this court and a federal court had previously 

rejected appellant’s double jeopardy claim and, therefore, found the issue was barred by 

the doctrine of res judicata. Id. at *4. We also rejected claims of bad faith by the 

prosecution in ordering additional DNA testing and ineffective assistance of counsel, id.

at *5-6, and found his convictions were not contrary to the manifest weight of the 

evidence, id. at *10. Nonetheless, appellant continues to challenge the DNA evidence 

and the second indictment. 

{¶ 5} On May 2, 2017, appellant filed a pro se postconviction motion for a void 

judgment asserting his conviction had been procured by a fraud committed by the 

prosecution. Appellant also argued the judgment of conviction was void and subject to 

relief under Fed.Civ.R. 60(b)(4). This motion again raised issues regarding the DNA 

evidence and claims of double jeopardy, as well as an allegation that appellant’s juvenile 

delinquency record was used to enhance his sentence. 

{¶ 6} On September 27, 2017, the trial court denied the motion because it was 

untimely under R.C. 2953.21 and all of the claims are barred by the doctrine of res 

judicata because they were or could have been raised in prior proceedings. Upon a 

review of appellant’s assignments of error and the judgment of the trial court, we find the 

trial court did not err in its judgment. Therefore, we find appellant’s two assignments of 

error not well-taken. 
4.

{¶ 7} Furthermore, the state requests in its brief that appellant be declared a 

vexatious litigator and be banned from filing any future pro se pleadings. We refer the 

prosecutor to R.C. 2323.52(B), which provides the remedy for a prosecutor contending 

with a vexatious litigator. See Watkins v. Perry, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2017-T-0031, 

2017-Ohio-9347, ¶ 25; Watkins v. Pough, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2016-T-0100, 2017-

Ohio-7026, ¶ 41. This court does not have the authority to declare an individual a 

vexatious litigator. Howard v. Indus. Comm., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-04-1037, 2004-

Ohio-5672, ¶ 6. 

{¶ 8} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to 

appellant and that substantial justice has been done, the judgment of the Williams County 

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal 

pursuant to App.R. 24. 

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. 

Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. 

_______________________________ 

Christine E. Mayle, 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.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.