[Cite as State v. Brown,
2022-Ohio-607.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vsCase No. 2021 CA 0069
STANLEY BROWN, JR.
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 15 CR 0698
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 2, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
GARY BISHOP STANLEY BROWN, JR.
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY PRO SE
VICTORIA MUNSON N. Central Correctional Complex
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR P. O. Box 1812
38 South Park Street Marion, Ohio 43301
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 2021 CA 0069 2
Wise, P. J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Stanley Brown, Jr. (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction
and sentence entered in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas on Aiding or
Abetting Rape pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) following a jury trial. Appellee is the
State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On January 3, 2015, J.J. attended a party at the Rodeway Inn where she
consumed alcohol, marijuana, and psychedelic mushrooms. Approximately ninety
minutes later, Appellant arrived at the party.
{¶3} Two hours after arriving, Appellant, his co-defendants, and J.J. were in a
different room of the Rodeway Inn. While playing a drinking game, J.J. lost consciousness
due to her high level of intoxication.
{¶4} Once she regained consciousness, J.J. discovered Co-Defendant Hughes
vaginally penetrating her without her consent. Appellant encouraged Co-Defendant
Hughes as Hughes vaginally raped J.J. and told the victim to relax. In addition to
encouraging Hughes, Appellant pushed J.J. down when she tried to get up from the bed
and stuck his penis in J.J.’s face in an attempt to force J.J. to perform oral sex on him.
{¶5} On January 5, 2015, J.J. went to OhioHealth Mansfield for a SANE exam.
During the exam, J.J. told nurse Tammy Robertson what happened on January 3, 2015,
and identified Appellant and Co-Defendant Hughes as two of her attackers. Nurse
Robertson collected anal and vaginal swabs, pubic hair, and fingernail clippings from J.J.
{¶6} Nurse Robertson also contacted Richland County Sheriff’s Office and J.J.’s
mother in order to collect J.J.’s clothes from January 3, 2015.
Richland County, Case No. 2021 CA 0069 3
{¶7} Deputy Broom collected J.J.’s rape kit and clothing and submitted them to
the Bureau of Criminal Investigation.
{¶8} On January 8, 2015, Deputy Dittrich interviewed J.J., who provided a
statement regarding her rape at Rodeway Inn and identified Appellant, Co-Defendant
Hughes and Co-Defendant Murphy as her attackers. Dittrich obtained search warrants
for DNA swabs from Appellant, Co-Defendant Hughes, Co-Defendant Murphy, and
several other guests from the party.
{¶9} Appellant’s DNA matched both sperm and non-sperm DNA on J.J.’s shirt
from January 3, 2015. Bureau of Criminal Investigation matched Co-Defendant Hughes’s
DNA to sperm DNA recovered from J.J.’s vagina.
{¶10} On August 11, 2015, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on
one count of Rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), a felony in the first-degree, one
count of Aiding or Abetting Rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(C) and R.C.
2907.02(A)(2), a felony in the first-degree, and one count of Kidnapping in violation of
R.C. 2905.01(A)(4), a felony in the first-degree.
{¶11} At his arraignment on September 15, 2015, Appellant pled not guilty to the
indictment.
{¶12} On June 2, 2016, a jury trial commenced.
{¶13} On June 7, 2016, the jury found Appellant guilty of Aiding or Abetting Rape
pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) and not guilty on the remaining counts of the
indictment. On June 13, 2016, Appellant was sentenced to seven years in prison, five
years of mandatory post-release control, and was classified as a Tier III sex offender.
Richland County, Case No. 2021 CA 0069 4
{¶14} On July 1, 2106, Appellant filed a notice of appeal arguing the trial court
erred in excluding any testimony pursuant to Ohio’s Rape Shield Law and that there was
not sufficient evidence to support his conviction. On March 28, 2017, this Court affirmed
the Trial Court’s decision.
{¶15} On June 16, 2021, Appellant filed a Motion to Vacate Void Judgment with
the trial court.
{¶16} On June 21, 2021, Appellee filed a response to Appellant’s motion.
{¶17} On August 13, 2021, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶18} Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. He herein raises the following two
Assignments of Error:
{¶19} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO VACATE VOID JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION WHEN IT MISJUDGED APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT THAT
AN INDICTMENT WAS NEVER RETURNED CHARGING APPELLANT WITH AIDING
AND ABETTING RAPE.
{¶20} “II. AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION MAY BE FOUND WHEN A TRIAL COURT
“APPLIES THE WRONG LEGAL STANDARD, MISAPPLIES THE CORRECT LEGAL
STANDARD OR RELIES ON CLEARLY ERRONEOUS FINDINGS OF FACT.”
(MUSSON V. MUSSON 11TH DIST. NO. 2013-T-0113; 2014-OHIO 5381 PARA. 15
QUOTING THOMAS V. CLEVELAND 176 OHIO APP.3D 401; 2008-OHIO-1720
PARA.15; 892 N.E.2D 454 (8TH DIST.) (SIC) AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION MAY BE
Richland County, Case No. 2021 CA 0069 5
FOUND WHERE THE COURT’S ATTITUDE IS. 5 OHIO ST.3D 317 219; 5 OHIO 481;
450 N.E.2D 1140(1983)(SIC)).”
I., II.
{¶21} In Appellant’s First and Second Assignments of Error, Appellant argues the
trial court relies on erroneous findings of fact and abused its discretion when it denied
Appellant’s Motion to Vacate Void Judgment. We disagree.
{¶22} In his motion filed June 16, 2021, Appellant argued his conviction and
sentence were void because the count in the indictment read that he aided and abetted
the rape of J.J. by three individuals. However, he was never indicted for aiding and
abetting the rape of J.J. by Co-Defendant Hughes individually or aiding and abetting a
rape he committed himself. As such, the indictment was invalid, failing to invoke the
jurisdiction of the trial court.
{¶23} Appellant relies on People v. Edge, 406 Ill. 490,
94 N.E.2d 359 (1950). In
People v. Edge, the Supreme Court for the State of Illinois found in order for the
jurisdiction for the trial court to be invoked, the information must charge a crime.
Id.
Appellant also cites State v. Presler,
112 Ohio App. 437,
176 N.E.2d 308 (3rd Dist.1960).
In Presler, the State of Ohio fails to allege in the indictment that the defendant broke into
a building as required by the statute and therefore did not charge the defendant with a
crime under the laws of the State of Ohio.
Id. As such, the Third District Court of Appeals
held the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction.
Id.
Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars
the defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an
appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process
Richland County, Case No. 2021 CA 0069 6
that was raised or could have raised by the defendant at the trial which
resulted in that judgment of conviction or on appeal from that judgment.
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175,
226 N.E.2d 104 (1967).
{¶24} This Court has previously held, “[A] defendant who fails on direct appeal to
challenge the sentence imposed on him for an offense is barred by res judicata from
appealing that sentence ….” State v. Lindsay, 5th Dist. Richland No. 16CA39, 2017-
Ohio-595, ¶30, quoting State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176,
2006-Ohio-1245,
846 N.E.2d
824, ¶19.
{¶25} We recognize that an exception to the application of res judicata applies to
void judgments. See State v. Draughon, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-149, 2017-Ohio-
7741, ¶9. Generally, however, judgments that are erroneous for other than jurisdictional
reasons are merely voidable and not subject to collateral attack. See O’Malley v.
O’Malley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98708, 2013-Ohio-5238, ¶24, citing State ex rel. Beil v.
Dota,
168 Ohio St. 315, 319-320,
154 N.E.2d 634 (1958).
{¶26} We find Appellant’s aforesaid legal theory is in actuality an attempt to raise
an untimely error of law regarding the deficiency of Appellee’s indictment. Because
Appellant failed to include the complained of issues in his direct appeal, he is attempting
to circumvent the doctrine of res judicata by claiming his convictions were void because
the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. “Because subject matter jurisdiction goes
to the power of the court to adjudicate the merits of a case, it can never be waived and
may be challenged at any time” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630,
122 S.Ct.
1781,
152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002); State ex rel. Jones v. Suster,
84 Ohio St.3d 70, 75,
701
N.E.2d 1002 (1998).
Richland County, Case No. 2021 CA 0069 7
{¶27} At the core of his argument, Appellant argues the trial court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction due to defects in the indictment. However, “[a] defective indictment
renders the charge voidable, not void.” State v. Bragwell, 7th Dist. Mahoning No 06-MA-
140, 2008-Ohio-3406, ¶14. Therefore, this alleged error would not divest the trial court of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Id.
{¶28} As Appellant’s argument on the alleged deficiency of the indictment does
not affect the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction we find the doctrine of res judicata
does apply. Because Appellant could have challenged the indictment on direct appeal to
this Court, Appellant’s argument is barred by res judicata.
{¶29} Accordingly, Appellant’s First and Second Assignments of Error are
overruled.
{¶30} For the foregoing reasons, judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of
Richland County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, P. J.
Delaney, J., and
Baldwin, J., concur.
JWW/br 0224
