supreme court of ohio and the ohio judicial system - humbly submitted, affidavit … affidavit of...

In The Supreme Court of Ohio

Leon HawkinsRelator

09-1242Ohio Supreme Court #

Michael Watson (Common Pleas Judge) Writ of ProhibitionRespondent ^

Now comes the Relator in this Writ of Prohibition, seeking relief from unauthorized Exercise of

Jurisdiction of the Franklin County Court of the Common Pleas, in which Michael Watson was the Sitting

Judge in the Criminal Case #96 CR-04-2229.

The Court of Common Pleas Patently and Unambiguously lacked Jurisdiction in said case.

Relator plainly lays out his case in his Memorandum In Support and his Affidavit of Facts.

R aEJUt, O R 2000

CLERK OF COURTSUPREME. COURT OF OHIO

Relator:Leon Hawkins # 347-424Le. C.I.P. O. Box 56Lebanon, Ohio 45036

Humbly Submitted,

Respondent:Judge Michael Watson (Common Pleas)373 South High StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215

Memorandum In Support

Writ of Prohibition

The purpose of a Writ of Prohibition is to restrain inferior courts and tribunals from exceeding their

jurisdiction. State ex Rel. Barton V. Butler City Bd. Of Elections 39 Ohio St 3d 291

The Ohio Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Prohibition. Section 2(B)(1)(d),

Article IV, Ohio Constitution.

A Writ of Prohibition " Tests and determines 'solely and only' the subject matter jurisdiction" of the

lower court. State ex Rel. Staton V. Franklin Cty. Common Pleas Court 5 Ohio St. 2d 17

A Writ of Prohibition may issue before a lower court has made a detennination of it's own jurisdiction,

even where an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law may exist. Dept. of Adm. Serv., office

of Collective Bargaining V. State Emp. Relation Bd. 54 Ohio St. 3d at 51-52.

The Relator must prove that (1) the lower court is about to exercise judicial authority, (2) The exercise of

authority is not authorized by law, and (3) the Relator possesses no other adequate remedy in the ordinary

course of law if the Writ of Prohibition is denied. State ex Rel. Keenan V. Calabrese 69 Ohio St. 3d

176

If a lower court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to proceed in a cause, prohibition will issue

to prevent any future unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction and to correct the results of prior jurisdictional

unauthorized actions. State ex Red. Funas V. Monnin 1220 Ohio St 3d 279

Where Jurisdiction is Patently and Unambiguously laclcing in lower court, Relators seeking a Writ of

Prohibition need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy at law because of Atternate Remedies like

append would be immaterial. State ex Rel. Funas V. Monnin 120 Ohio St. 3d 279

R.C. 2901.11 (A)(1) patently unambiguously divest a Common Pleas to Prosecute or Punish a person,

unless they commit an offence under Ohio Laws.

PAGE 10F 6

Court of Common Pleas Jurisdiction In Crinvnal Cases

Subject Matter Jurisdiction is a court's power to hear and decide a case on the Merits. Morrison V.

Sterner 32 Ohio St 2d 86

If a court acts without jurisdiction, then any proclamation by that court is void. Patton V. Diemer 35

Ohio St 3d 68

The constitution itself confers no jurisdiction whatever upon that court neither in civil or criminal cases.

It is given a capacity to receive jurisdiction in all such cases, but it can exercise none until fixed by law.

Stevens V. State 1854 WL 34

Criminal Jurisdiction does not attach until a charge is filed alleging some violation of the Ohio Criminal

Statues. State V. Brooks (4a' District) 1988 WL 69117, State V. Battle (9`li District) 2007-Ohio-2475,

State V. Nye (10t'' District) 1996 WL 303675

To give a court jurisdiction in a criminal case, it is essential that the indictment charge the accused with a

crime. State V. Cimpritz 158 Ohio St 490

The trial Court is vested with jurisdiction where the defendant has been charged with offenses via a valid

indictment. State V. Bogan 2005-Ohio-3412

A valid complaint must be filed in order to vest a court with Subject Matter Jurisdiction. State V. Wood

357 NE 2d 1106

Statutes establishing subject matter jurisdiction are substantive laws, because they create and define the

rights of parties. Proctor V. Kardassilaris 115 Ohio St 3d 71

The Jurisdiction of the Common Pleas Court can be said to be statutory. State V. Keefe 168 Ohio St 3d

71

The Validity of an accused's conviction depends upon a proper invocation of the trial court's jmisdiction

by way of a valid indictment or information. Brown V. Maxwell 174 Ohio St 29

PAGE 2 OF 6

The Court of Common Pleas is by Section 2913.03, R.C. given original jurisdiction in Felony Jurisdiction

is invoked by the return of a proper indictment by the Grand Jury of that County. Click V. Eckle

174 Ohio St 88

Sufficiencv of Indictment R.C. 2941.03

An indictment or inforination is sufficient if it can be understood there from:

(A) That it is entitled in a court having authority to receive it, though the name of the court is not

stated.

(D) That an offense was committed at some place within the jurisdiction of the court.

(E) That an offense was committed at some time prior to the time of finding of the indictment or filing of

information.

The court does not have the authority to receive and commence Prosecution on a defective indictment that

does not charge a crime or offense under the Laws of the State of Ohio. See R.C. 2931.03, which give the

court of Common Pleas original jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses as a Courts Jurisdiction is fixed by

law. Stevens V. State 1854 WL 34

Trial Court (Common Pleas) has no Judicial Power in Criminal Cases. Except as derived from statutes,

courts cannot exercise any power derived from any other source. Ex parte Steinmetz 172 NE 623

As well as Criminal Law Jurisdiction does not conferred onto the court of Common Pleas unless h

commits an offense under the laws in the State of Ohio. R. C. 2901.11(A)(1)

No Judge has the authority to disregard law, a sentence that does is void.

PAGE 3 OF 6

The Purpose of an Indictment

An indictment or infonnation serves 2 distinct purpose:

1) One purpose is to set up the elements of the offense, so as to sufficiently to meet, in order to

satisfy due process, as well as, to identify the criminal charges in a way sufficient to protect against a

second prosecution that violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. (Russell V. U. S. 369 U. S. 749) The

standards that satisfy that requirement are set out in R.C. 2941.05.

And

2) The other and proceeding purpose an indictment serves is to involce the jurisdiction of the

court in which it is filled, to proceed to try the defendant for the public offense charged in the indictment.

As stated by Judge J. Grady in State V. Wilkinson 2008-Ohio-4400

The Mens Rea as being required by law, is an essential element, and as such, the indictment failed to

invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas.

An indictment that omits an essential element fails to charge an offense. See State V. Wozniak 172 Ohio

St 517

Also, an indictment that does not charge a defendant with intent does not charge a defendant with the

crime. State V. Wozniak

Going all the way back to 1842, the Ohio Supreme Court held in Lamberton V. State 1842 WL 14

All fact constituting the crime must be set forth in the indictment.

In the case at hand, the Court of Common Pleas, Patently and unambiguousl.y lacked Jurisdiction in

Relators Criminal Case in Franklin County Ohio, ( 96 CR-04-2229) which he was indicted on 5 counts.

Count One - Aggravated Murder/ underline offence Agg. Burglary

Count Two - Aggravated Murder/ underline offence Agg. Robbery

Count Three - Attempted Aggravated Murder/ underline office Agg. Burglary & Agg. Robbery

Count Four - Aggravated Burglary

Count Five - Aggravated Robbery

PAGU 4 OF 6

Along with multiples Specifications for each charge, including Death Specification and Three

Year Firearm Specification.

The problem comes in with the 2 underlining offenses of Aggravated Burglary and Aggravated Robbery,

which both lacked the Required Mens Rea Element of Recklessness as to each offense and was

insufficient to change those crimes.

The said Aggravated Burglary in Count 4 of the indictment says in pertient port, " The said Leon Hawkins

having inflicted or attempted or threatened to inflict physical harm to James Mitchell add / or Martin

Brewer, and / or Christine Casper," lack the Mens Rea element as required by law.

The said Aggravated Robbery in Count 5 of the indictment says in pertient port, "And / or inflict or

Attempt to inflict serious physical harm to James Mitchell add / or Martin Brewer, and / or Christine

Casper," Which lack the Mens Rea element as required by law.

Both Aggravated Murder charges and the Attempted Murder, does not contain a Mens Rea, as they get

their Mens Rea from the underlining offenses. By failing to charge the Relator with a Constitutional

indictment for the charges of Aggravated Burglary and Aggravated Robbery, The State failed to charge

the crimes of Murder and Attempted Murder, Along with all the other Specifications.

As such, The Trial Court lacked authority to try and convict the Relator for theses crimes which he stands

Punished.

As such, Relator humbly asked that this Writ be granted to stop the unauthorized use of Jurisdiction of the

Court of Conunon Pleas.

Conclusion

By failing to charge the defendant with a crime under Ohio Laws, the indictment failed to invoke the

jurisdiction of the Court of Cornmon Pleas, to Prosecute and Punish him by way of the Statues. R. C.

2901.11 (A)(1)

PAGE 5 OF 6

As, No act is a crime except an act is done in violation of the express provisions of a statute or ordinance

legally enacted. Toledo Disposal Co. V. State 89 Ohio St 230

This violates a number of U. S. and Ohio Constitutional Rights such as 5`h and 6t1' Amendments and Art.I

Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.

Certificate of Service

A copy of this Writ was served to Judge Michael Watson VIA U. S. Mail, this -^ Day of July, 2009.

PAGE 6 OF 6

Affidavit of Indigency

And

Statement of Facts

Now comes the Relator, and under penalty of perjury, attest to the following as true based on persona;knowledge, and Relator stands competent to testify to all matters stated in this affidavit:

Relator is indigent and has no means of support.

Relator is currently incarcerated and lives off $17.00 a Month.

Relator said state-pay is used for basic upkeep, postage, and medical care.

Relator owns no property, or Real-estate or, bank accounts.

Relator is unable to pay filing fee, copies, or for attorney.

uSl1PREME CpUR^pF OHIO

Relator in his Criminal Case was not charge with a crime which he stands prosecuted and Punish for.

The Court of Common Pleas lacked Jurisdiction to try and convict him on all 5 counts in his indictment,as Jurisdiction was never conferred by way of the statues of the State of Ohio, as Aggravated Burglaryand Aggravated Robbery lacked the required Mens Rea Element in his indictment when it came to theelement of inflicted or attempted or threatened to inflict physical harm to another, as such, the indictmentwas insufficient to charge the crime of Agg. Burglary and Agg. Robbery. (See attached indictment) and (

Memorandum In Support).

Both the Aggravated Burglary and the Aggravated Robbery, which the indictment failed to charge, servedas the underlining offenses for 2 Aggravated Murder charges and 1 Attempted Murder charge, which theMurder charges contains no Mens Rea Element.

They get their Mens Rea Element from the underlining offense of Aggravated Burglary and AggravatedRobbery, which the both them in Count 4 and Count 5, fails to charge those crime.

Relator indictment was defective from state to finish, as it failed to charge the offenses, and invoke the

Jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas.

Notary of Public

Sworn and Attested in my presence, A notary in and for the State of Ohio, thisa_A^ay of

July, 2009.

6ILLY DEE BAILEYNotsn Pl#bllo. sta18 oa ckNo

lN Commtasron E"$Mar 27, a01c

1^d

Notary Exp. Date

State of Ohio,Franklin County, ss:

Case No. 96CR 04-2229

INDICTMENT FORvaar Aggravated Murdorwith Specifications, (2903.01 R.C.) 0 (2Counts); Attempted Aggravated Murder vvithSpecification, (2923.02/2903.01 R.C:) (F-1) (1Count); Aggravated Burglary t-jvithSpecification, (2911.11R.C.)(A/F-:)(106 t)and Aggravated Robbery with Specific>n,(2911.01 R.C.) (A/F-1) ( 1 Count); (Tot*. 5Counts) °

cUG•

In the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, of

the Grand Jury term beginning January fifth, in the year of our Lord, one thousand

nine hundred ninety-six.

Count One

The Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, duiy selepted,

impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire of crimes and offenses comi7aitPed.vaithin

the body of Franklin County, in the State of Ohio, in the name and by. the authority

of the State of Ohio upon their oath do find and present that Leon Fiawkins late of

said County, on or about the 3rd day of April in the year of our Lord,;one tkousand

nine hundred ninety-six within the County of Franklin aforesaid, in violation of

section 2903.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, did purposely cause the death of another,

to wit: Martin Brewer, while committing-or atternpting to-commit, or while fleeing

immediately after committing or attempting to commit Aggravated Burglary, and in

compliance with section :3941.14 of the Ohio Revised Code, the Grand Jurors further

fir:d 5,PECIFICATION ONE TO THE FIRST COUNT, under section 2929.04(A)(7) of

COMPUTER^^

the Ohio Revised Code,.that the oifense at bar was committed while the offender was

committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing immediately after committing or

attempting to commit Aggravated Burglary, and either the offender was the principalN

offender in the commission of the Aggravated Murder, or, if not the pr'a!î,^ipal

offender, committed the Aggravated Murder with prior calculation and design,-and

in compliance with section 2941.14 of the Ohio Revised Code, the Grand Jui^fs

further find SPECIFICATION TWO TO THE FIRST COUNT, under section

2929.04(A)(7) of the Ohio Revised Code, that the offense at bar was committed while

the offender was committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing immed^ately after

committing or attempting to commit Aggravated Robbery, and either the olI'enderwa9

the principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder, ory if,not"t,he

principal offender, committed the Aggravated Murder with prior calcoation and

design, and in compliance with section 2941.14 of the Olvo Revised Code, the Grand

Jurors further find SPECIFICATION THREE TO THE FIRST COUNT, under section

2929.04(A)(5) of the Ohio Revised Code, that the offense at bar was part of a"course

of conduct involving the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill two or more persons

by the offender, to wit: Martin Brewer and/or James Mitchell SPECIFICATION

FOUR TO THE FIRST COUNT, in accordance with section 2941.141 of tliê Ohio

Revised Code, the Grand Jurors further find and specify that the said Leon Hawkins

had a firearm, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Ohio Revised Code, on or abouthis

person or under his control while committing the said Aggravated Murder,

Count Two

The Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, duly selected,

impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire of crimes and offenses committed within

the body of Franklin County, in the State of Ohio, in the name and by the auttamrity

of the State of Ohio upon their oath do find and present that Leon Hawkins 109 of

said County, on or about the 3rd day of April in the year of our Lord, one thouand0


section 2903.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, did purposely cause the death of another,

to wit: Martin Brewer, while committing or attempting to commit, or while fleeing...,

immediatelv after committing or attempting to commit Aggravated Robbery, and;and

in compliance with section 2941.14 of the Ohio Revised Code, the Qt'and Jnrors

furc.ner find SPECIFICATION ONE TO THE SECOND COUNT, utider seition

2929.04(A)(7) of the Ohio Revised Code, that the offense at bar was committed:ivhile

the offender was committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing immediately after

committing or attempting to commit Aggravated Burglary, and either the offender

was the principal offender in the commission of the Aggravated Murder, cr, if noi the

principal offender, committed the Aggravated Murder with prior calcuiation -and

design, and in compliance with section 2941.14 of the Ohio Revised Code, the Grand

Jurors further find SPECI FICATION TWO TO THE SECOND COUNT. under section

2929.04(A)(7)of.the Ohio Revised Code, that the offense at bar was committed while__

the offender was committing, attempting to commit, or tteeing immediately ®#ter

committing or attempting to commit Aggravated Robbery, and either the offender was

-3-

the principal offender in the commission of the Aggravated Murder, or, if not the

principal offender, committed the Aggravated Murder with prior calculation and

design, and in compliance with section 2941.14 of the Ohio Revised Code, the PSand

tJurors further find SPECiFICATION THREE TO THE SECOND COUN'I' utider

Nsection 2929.04(A)(5) of the Ohio Revised Code, that the offense at bar was part 74 a

0course of conduct invalving the purposeful lcilling of or attempt to kill two or morb

persons by the offender, to wit: Martin Brewer and/or James Mitchell

SPECIFICATION FOUR TO THE SECOND COUNT, in accordance with section

2941.141 of the Ohio Revised Code, the Grand Jurors further 6nd and specify that

the said Leon Hawkins had a firearm, as defined in section 2923.11 of the phi.o

Revised Code, on or about his person or under his control while committing the said; ;_..'

Aggravated Murder,

Coµnt Three


impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire of crimes and offenses committed within

the body of Franklin County, in the State of Ohio, in the name and by t,he aut4ority

of the State of Ohio upon their oath do find and present that Leon Hawkins late of

said County, on or about the 3rd day of April in the year of our Lord, one thousand


section 2923.02 of the Ohio Revised Code, did pnrposely engage in conduct which, if

successful, would have constituted or resulted in the offense of Aggravated Murder

, a violation of section 2903.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, in that the said Leon

-4-

0

Hawkins attempted to purposely cause the death of another, to wit: James btitchell,

while committing or attempting to commit, or while fleeing immediately after

committing or attempting to commit Aggravated Robbery and/or Aggravvated

Burglary, SPECIFICATION ONE TO THE THIRD COUNT, in accordance with

section 2941.141 of the Ohio Revised Code, the Grand Jurors further find and spe^'ify

that the said Leon Hawkins had a firearm, as defined in section 2923.11 of the O1&

Revised Code, on or about his person or under his control while committing the said

Attempted Aggravated Murder,

The Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, duly selected;

Count Four

impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire of crimes and offenses committed within. ,

the body of Franklin County, in the State of Ohio, in the name and by the authority:_,

of the State of Ohio upon their oath do find and present that Leon Hawkins late of



section 2911.11 of the Ohio Revised Code, by force, stealth, or deception, did trespass

in 357 Columbian Avenue, an occupied structure as defined in section 2909.01of the

Ohio Revised Code, or in a separately secured oz• separately occupied portion thereof,

the property of another, to wit: James Mitchell and/or Martin Brewer, with purpose

to commit therein a theft offense as defi.ned in section 2913,02 of the Ohio.I3evised

Code, or a felony, the said Leon Hawkins having inflicted or attempted or threatened

to inflict physical harm to Jomea Mitchell and/or Martin Brewer, and/or Christine

-5-

Casper, the said i^eon Hawkins having a deadly weapon, to wit: a firearm, on or

about his person or under his control, and/or the said occupied structure involved

being the permanent or temporary habitation of James Mitchell and/or Martin

Brewer, in which at the time, the said James Mitchell and/or Martin Brewer o`r^-any

person was present or likely to be present, to wit: Christine Casper, SPECIFICA'I'IQN

^NE TO THE FOURTH COUNT, in accordance with Qection 2941.141 of the Ohioo

Revised Code, the Grand Jurors further find and specify that the said Leon Hawkins

laad a firearm, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Ohio Revised Code, on or abouf; his

person or under his control while committing the said Aggravated Burglary,


i:mpaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire cf crimes and offenses committed w-ithin

the body of Franklin County, in the State of' Ohfo, in the name and by the authority

of the State of Ohio upon their oath do find and present that Leon Hawkin8 late of



section 2911.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, in attempting or committing a theft offense

as defined in section 2913.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, in respect to Martin Brewer

and/or James Mitchell and/or Christine Casper, or in fleeing immediately after such

attempt or offense did have a deadly weapon, to wit: a firearm, on or rabout hie person

or under his control, and/or inflict or attempt to inflict serious physical harm to

.A^T►ONMartin Brewer and/or James Mitchell, and/or Christine Casper, &ECLFIf

Count Five

-6-

ONE TO THE FIFTH COUNT, in accordance with section 2941.141 of the Ohio

Revised Code, the Grand Jurors further find and specify that the said Leon Hawlcins

had a&rearm, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Ohio Revised Code, on or about his

person or under his control while committing the said Aggravated Robbery^ntraryw

to the statute in such cases made and provideci and against the peace and d^ni.ty of^

the State of Ohio.

MICHAEI, MILLERProsecuting AttorneyFranklin County, Ohio

A TRUE BILL

-7-

State of Ohio v. Leon HawkinsAddress: 1119 Linwood Avenue 43206DOB: 1-10-77Sex/Race: male blackDate of Arrest: 4-4-96SSN: 289-72-6875Police Agency: CPDMunicipal Reference: 8597/96Count 1: Aggravated Murder

2903.01 with Specifi ation 3 and 4 and 6Count 2: Aggravated Murder

2903.01 with Specification 3 and 4 and 6Count 3: Attempted Aggravated Murder

2923.07J2903.01 F-1 with Specification 6Count 4: Aggravated Burglary

2911.11 A/F-1 with Specification 6Count 5: Aggravated Robbery

2911.01 AIF-1 with Specification R

Y•II,VDICTS8CJPR9611132

page 1page 2page 3page 4page 5page 6page 7page 8page 9page 10page 11page 12page 13page 14page 15page 16

supreme court of ohio and the ohio judicial system - humbly submitted, affidavit … affidavit of...

Documents