State v. Blacker

[Cite as State v. Blacker, 

.]


                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio,                                      :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                :
                                                                     No. 25AP-244
v.                                                  :              (C.P.C. No. 21CR-993)

Nathanial C. Blacker,                               :           (REGULAR CALENDAR)

                 Defendant-Appellant.               :



                                              D E C I S I O N

                                     Rendered on August 28, 2025


                 On brief: Shayla D. Favor, Prosecuting Attorney, and
                 Darren M. Burgess, for appellee.

                 On brief: Nathanial C. Blacker, pro se.


                  APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

BEATTY BLUNT, J.

        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Nathanial C. Blacker, appeals the April 8, 2024
decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for
postconviction relief. On May 4, 2023, Blacker was convicted after a jury trial. On May 11,
2023 and following a jury trial, the trial court sentenced Blacker to an aggregate term of 18
to 22 years incarceration for felonious assault with a repeat violent offender specification.
This court affirmed Blacker’s conviction and sentence on November 26, 2024. See State v.
Blacker, 

, (10th Dist.) (“Blacker I”) jurisdictional motion overruled at

, 

.
        {¶ 2} Blacker filed a timely pro se postconviction petition in the case on January 23,
2024. Following briefing, the trial court denied the petition without a hearing:
                 The Ohio Revised Code vests a court of common pleas with
                 jurisdiction over crimes and offenses classified as felonies. R.C.
No. 25AP-244                                                                             2


              2931.03. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over
              Defendant’s felony. The court also has jurisdiction over
              Defendant personally, as he is alleged to have committed the
              offenses defined by the Ohio Revised Code while within the
              State of Ohio. To the extent that Defendant appears to raise
              “sovereign citizen” arguments pertaining to this court’s
              authority and the State’s authority in general, such arguments
              have been soundly rejected by the Tenth District. Columbus v.
              Hinkle, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-79, 

, P20 (finding
              sovereign citizen arguments are “patently frivolous”).

              ...

              Defendant’s argument is barred by res judicata. Res judicata
              precludes the Court’s consideration of any claim that could
              have been raised below. State v. Perry, 

, 

 (1967). Defendant’s claims were raised or could
              have been raised before or during trial.

              ...

              Before a defendant can obtain an evidentiary hearing, the
              defendant must provide evidentiary documentation setting
              forth specific operative facts to support his claims. See State v.
              Kapper, 

 (1983). Defendant has not filed or
              included any evidentiary support for his claims.

              ...

              For the above reasons, the Court finds Defendant’s Petition not
              well taken and is DENIED.

(Emphasis in original.) (Jan. 23, 2024 Entry at 1-2.) Because the docket does not indicate
that Blacker was served with a copy of the denial in accordance with Civ.R. 58(B) and 5(B),
his appeal is timely, and he now asserts three errors with the trial court’s judgment:
              I. The trial court violated appellant’s due process rights when
              it made a finding that the post-conviction petition lacks merit.

              II. The trial court violated appellant’s due process rights when
              it made a finding that the post-conviction petition is barred by
              the doctrine of res judicata.

              III. The trial court violated appellant’s due process rights when
              it made a finding that the post-conviction petition was not
              supported by documentary evidence.
No. 25AP-244                                                                                  3


       {¶ 3} All three assignments challenge the trial court’s decision to deny Blacker’s
petition without a formal hearing, and this court reviews a trial court’s decision denying a
postconviction petition without a hearing for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., State v.
Howard, 

 (10th Dist.), (citing and quoting cases). An abuse of
discretion connotes a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. 

 citing
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 

 (1983). Further, “a reviewing court should
not overrule the trial court’s finding on a petition for postconviction relief that is supported
by competent and credible evidence.” State v. Sidibeh, 

, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.),
quoting State v. Gondor, 

, ¶ 58.
       {¶ 4} We set forth the detailed facts of Blacker’s crimes and the procedural history
of his case in our decision affirming his case on direct appeal and need not repeat them
here. See Blacker I, ¶ 2-32. In brief, on March 5, 2021, Blacker assaulted his live-in
girlfriend, E.T., by punching her in the mouth and stabbing her over 16 times, and this
assault was witnessed by two other individuals. Id. at ¶ 4-11. On appeal, he argued that his
right to a speedy trial had been violated, that he was prejudiced by the admission of
evidence of his post-arrest silence, that the court improperly refused to instruct the jury on
the offense of aggravated assault, that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of
trial counsel, that the trial court erred by permitting E.T. to display her scars to the jury,
that his conviction for the repeat violent offender specification lacked sufficient evidence,
and that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We overruled all
his assigned errors and affirmed his convictions. Id. at ¶ 137.
       {¶ 5} Blacker now argues that his conviction lacks merit because his “petition
proves that Ohio was not admitted into the Union in 1803,” that the petition “proves a
myriad of facts [sic] showing the application of pre-1914 federal laws govern Ohio territory,”
and that the trial court wrongly dismissed these arguments “as a ‘sovereign citizen’
conjecture when [the petition] raises un refutable [sic] claims.” (Brief of Appellant at v.)
He also argues that the “William Howard Taft was not the 27th President of the United
States,” that “the 17th Amendment and any laws past post 1914 are void ab initio,” that the
court erred by applying the doctrine of res judicata to summarily dismiss his claims prior
to a hearing, that his foregoing arguments were not barred by res judicata because they
were sua sponte denied by the trial court, and that the trial court erred by dismissing his
No. 25AP-244                                                                                  4


petition for lack of support by attached documentary evidence. Id. He also asserts that
Nathanial C. Blacker is “civilly dead,” that the estate of Nathanial C. Blacker is
“administered by its Executor, the Dead Traveler Trust,” and that “Nathanial Colin of the
Blachere family whom is known by his first and last name, Nathanial Colin, is a Fiduciary
trustee for the Dead Traveler Trust,” and that all these propositions are “indisputable.” Id.
at 1. He goes on to argue that because Ohio was not a state it had no jurisdiction over him,
that therefore his conviction is void ab initio, and that therefore res judicata cannot apply,
id. at 2, and that the trial court improperly refused to hold a hearing allowing him to present
his claims regarding the status of the state of Ohio. Id. Finally, he contends that his petition
was supported by documentary evidence because he “does not argue that specific parts of
the ORC and Ohio Constitution have no merit but that the entirety of same is not valid law,”
and because he attached to his petition a copy of H.J.R. 121, 

 - 

(08/07/1953) which was apparently the first formal acknowledgment of Ohio’s
admission to the Union (although it retroactively acknowledged that admission to March 1,
1803), see 

 as well as a copy of a financing statement and a memorandum of trust
identifying “the person Nathanial Blacker as a decedent’s estate.” (Emphasis in original.)
(Brief of Appellant at 3-4.)
       {¶ 6} Blacker has raised similar arguments in the past, and they have been rejected.
See, e.g., State v. Blacker, 

, ¶ 6-10 (12th Dist.) (“Blacker II”), and State v.
Blacker, 

, ¶ 26-30 (12th Dist.) (“Blacker III”). Notwithstanding the
academic question raised by H.J.R. 121, no court in any jurisdiction has ever accepted the
argument that Ohio was not admitted as the 17th state to the Union in 1803, even though it
is occasionally the source of “friendly conjecture among history buffs . . . .” Bowman v.
United States, 

 (E.D.Pa. 1995), quoting Switzer, John, Yes,
Virginia, Ohio is a State, Columbus Dispatch (Feb. 23, 1993) at 8B. As the Bowman court
observed:
              [I]n 1953, on the occasion of the sesquicentennial of Ohio’s
              admission to statehood, Congress -- on being advised that in
              1803 there had been no presidentially approved congressional
              declaration of Ohio’s admission -- enacted, and President
              Eisenhower signed, a resolution declaring Ohio’s statehood,
              retroactive to March 1, 1803. This event appears to have been
              purely ceremonial, however; for instance, there is no indication
              that Congress saw it to be necessary to correct the many
No. 25AP-244                                                                                  5


              problems that would have resulted had there been an actual
              defect in the process of Ohio’s admission to the Union.

Bowman, 

. Moreover, the trial court correctly dismissed both of
Blacker’s contentions—that Ohio is not a state and that he is civilly dead anyway—as
unworthy of its attention. The very documents that Blacker has relied upon to demonstrate
that he is “civilly dead” and that he is in reality simply the administrator of a “Dead Traveler
Trust” were issued by officers of the government of Ohio—which he also claims does not
legally exist. As we observed in Columbus v. ACM Vision, V, LLC, 

(10th Dist.), “jurisdictional challenges/arguments similar to those raised above rely on
‘what has commonly been described as “sovereign citizen” theories,’ ” and “[b]oth federal
and Ohio courts have rejected such claims as ‘patently frivolous.’ ” Accordingly, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion by denying Blacker’s petition without a hearing, since
Blacker is not entitled to a hearing on frivolous arguments.
       {¶ 7} For all the foregoing reasons, we overrule Blacker’s three assignments of
error and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying
Blacker’s postconviction petition without a hearing.
                                                                         Judgment affirmed.
                          EDELSTEIN and DINGUS, JJ., concur.