State v. Richardson, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2005)
State v. Richardson, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2005)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} Richardson advances two assignments of error on appeal. First, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion because it "was totally without STATUTORY SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION in the matter of State v. Richardson as a matter of law." Second, he claims the trial court erred in denying his motion because it "totally lacked jurisdiction of the accuser and the accused."
{¶ 3} In his first assignment of error, Richardson argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty pleas. As the State properly notes, this argument lacks merit. A common pleas court has original jurisdiction in felony cases, and its jurisdiction is invoked by the return of an indictment. Click v. Eckle (1962),
{¶ 4} In his second assignment of error, Richardson appears to argue that the prosecutor's office lacked authority to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction. Precisely how Richardson reaches this conclusion is unclear. In any event, we are satisfied that the prosecutor's office possessed the authority to prosecute him in Montgomery County. See R.C. §
Judgment affirmed.
Donovan, J., and Young, J., concur.
(Hon. Frederick N. Young, Retired from the Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Sitting by Assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio)
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.