!!^Akc tz,^, 9,Ei^4x^k ^r^n

^^EItIRlJE-

-v-

A^Clc^Ow kpc-A^ tdLoWt 1^^^`^^Sa ^qse C^ ' aOlH0 ° av'3

^Avo.tg;l. ^or?a,C.-^^- hrSk01'0 -^ pSu -7 3c^SO

q-1 54- e-+ 63 ^ HLED^1 O 130^ \a.0l.EbAww Owo

t

kC oewtUe

©oo q^^^^^o ^^vq^,50 ENs* C^A^ S^&uwtbus W6

27CLERK OF COURT

SUa REM£ COURT OF OHIO

EDFEB 2 7 2Q12

CLERK OF COURTSUPRE^T ®F ®HI®

^^ t-^^\1 f i 11. ^r.f1 1Y( T^ .r.tiK art--- SSIDtC%^

^1ut 4Fies , ^ I If tt ^lit `_°CO

MLMOU 1wK Of LAW

, ^.^- o : r^.t.^c 4^f ca ^ lwy^t s^c^tau lo aQt ^pt ©tilo C04\ . -^fb\;^ o -(S4M ` A 40 I^A.t44.+t f

v^ uiulFss cyy\ wcE^^^a^^w. ^ (-zra^1 4^r_ t^is

AL) Q

" C;-«i

T'^ 5 ^ u^^5 tSD ^u rs^tn, c^r cA^^urnttJt ^ dIS^^NLEA^.^^S^V1?t^7 ^ \ SJ^'^VFfcXlCic

'Voc r fuk-^o \C. ^5,^,

(D_\ ^, of L ^.^ ^so

A Sw.tFE^tur^i ^ G^as tSo u4wcL+-. -kow ^ Dt}FStQG

0 r`L tci^^sc^ "^uc3 tG) t ^^ Cdl t;^

tc. s vc^j^(vxA c^A^, W\O^

^1Y^^L ^ ^NfLnJt S l:pNk'^ . ^

t'oot ^o Lw 4. .uri% LczL^ ct ►^

^'riAl ^ Avu -k-^n^ -c,^S ^llEcawEl^^l V^I^C E ^^n^

CN^c^ 1ML ^ t,f ^3^ft V^^Y 3^ i^ ^6J

,

__^C-U^l SELJ J t'c ^l ^u Yy1.^0 E r'S Q^oC ^A^q , G^-

^ ^ . ._. < .-<--< -t • t--.-^,^- ^<-^ ^ ^^_..^^L.4t=.-'^`-^,^-

4,c-

ol

o^^.

n -^ cc ^ -^-^ ^1^fsti

^u rn U^ ^^r^^^tw. 4 R^tCQ

..f-_

7 o6clfm -KP,VV)

_ 71

tQ.) Ug^pam"-k c^ rrQcA-wvi'S

-bur ^ Sen^ 5*k-^cn O\\^, u, i. .

Eln^c.. L S^7vC^v^

--gLu

- 4-c- tJ `v\c^ tiL(^LOwc tD

N\ , tMlA ;i AAAuv\ (crn.c.c4N6utu Prkor-^S

^^72- &PNNO^\ ^&a ^k^a\ I^nN

^^\crn 40•,

tL

C^^C^C C^ \V C CO M J^ ^t5^A4,JES

t4p

(-at) -t-l^^ 4vv^ ^^^ iu E^ E^•1 l(^ ^Wl^-orj A)VrNcl

u ^CC C i0 wVtoEn o^ (^CKtIC-S U!" E^ S^t4t^U5^sDSet^rbf

^-- (^

:SAAPC- pELIS^SS^q^ ^4^ . 1 ce 010 \ 33S o°L

~ ^oo^ - o\ - 003, M^ Nic.ho\a

^^^G-(^^ ^4(Z- ^ • ^ WL - ^^ _.Q^^^ ^ ^S ^.; ^ , ^ ,^, . , ,

S+PAC G^ c^ • ^ ^r^{^4^i^ 5+ 3c^ 4ZS `

l-lC t

Auk-'S---

-^ ^ C) ^ 10^1^ l^ ^OU lSl (M y C S ---

0 C^ © l,^o

• ITh ^n(,.^Th ^ S,C. ^1• ^^

. •

C

c

49 41,N t1n . .

G

R.C. yS\\ ,

a

I

`RS^^t, \^.\^ (Gl(tl^c, ^^l

^

S_^-s

>^ ^`^ot\, l2-^ •

0

^-.^--_ .^1. aa

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Bell v. Beightler, 2003 -Ohio- 88, 2003 WL 116146, ^^ ^^Ohio App. 10 Dist., 2003 ....................................................................................... t

Colegrove v. Burns (1964), 175 Ohio St. 437, 175 Ohio St. 437, t® ,195 N.E.2d 811, 25 0.O.2d 447 ............................................................................ o

Ex parte Bemert, 7 P.C.L.J. 460, 62 Cal. 524, 1881 WL 2102 (Cal.) ..................!

Ex parte Bulger, 9 P.C.L.J. 453, 60 Cal. 438, 1882 WL 1769 (Cal.) ....................I

Ex parte BURDEN, 92 Miss. 14,45 So. 1, 131 Am.St.Rep. 511 .........................`y

Ex parte COX., 3 Hasb. 530, 3 Idaho 530, 32 P. 197, 995 Am.St.Rep:2 ...............

Ex parte Kearny 55 Cal. 212, 1880 WL 1857 (Cal.) ............................................/

Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. 163, 1873 WL 15958 (U.S.N.Y.),21L.Ed. 872, 18 Wall. 163 ...................................................................................^

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 1866 WL 9434 (U.S.Ind.), 718 L.Ed. 281,4 Wall. 2 ..........................................................................................1

Ex parte Milton 178 N.E.2d 846, 87 Ohio Law Abs. 168,(OhioCom.Pl., July 11, 1961) ..............................................................................7r ak,o2a

Ex parte Page, 49 Mo. 291 ...................................................................................61 1

Ex parte Reed, 100 U.S. 13, 10 Otto 13, 1879 WL 16605 (U.S.Mass.),

25 L.Ed. 538, 2 A.F.T.R. 2393 ............................................................................. I 1

Ex parte Smith, 2 Nev. 338 ..................................................................................7

Ex parte Steinmetz (1930), 35 Ohio App. 491, 172 N.E.2d 623 .......................... Its`t

Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 935 .......................................... 7

Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152 ...................................... i

Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996),74 Ohio St.3d 149, ^^656N.E.2d 1282, 1996 -Ohio- 387 ......................................................................

0-rkrn (Lu1c- 3 _ - _ _ _ - -u1UV\ (L^l-..

av-O^I,N'\ l,O'J

oi

Vt G^

®Lu S{ 3 Cl5(o ^

^ va- ^^^ -7t^q

--------------------

{l I^^ ®LJs y `'t C U f IVIi d-^ 1 ^ ^ ( c , ^o ^-°-,'---

i t\ vI -7 S OOtZ^,a^ tL

!54Ae l l^kl^ C ^ _ - - ^ L

=^_------

^^1U^:. 1^-

_C^^^ \ 5^ ^^^ v^e 30ta

Mw NkU-) NA

► a

5-^ t^ar ^ l^C t^ oA C)

'Eln. f^lrJ{- ^ a e i ^ " Y^

S^ V U o`^o\o^ L 3^(u l7^' i^O\r> 4^^kkc7

S-^kr_- ^ccx^^LC^ k q 01K^ C a^4 k t©D.^-^ I ^) n» c7^^^ L^-:)

-5+mc Li• 6^ ^ k 5t 1 E ^^D ^ p

`01 0,0 13

6 k c o lo.; U - `) .S f ^ ^ I \^,^^^ \ ^ N k Do, ej ^L o^

Le,6^^^ Dt^D- . k , .. V3

0^;1 S3^ U•S, L-jz:-

a5u ^l 31U _-, sup ; _t Y^k ^-

V. Ita^d9.;'^, (1967) 10 ohio st,2d,266,267,268,39,oo 2d,744,saea2t3,233.f3 d5

. v. S.' ns 117,at~as:o,st,3d,420,(2008) obio 5.197,884,na,2d,568,@912..t3,65

o v. H 1y 142,ohio,ap>p;3c`c,615,756,sao,2d,702,ag>,8th dist 2001 _., 0-, 65

RiJSSEL v. L1M:3'E7 STATES k94r2,3fa9,aJ.S<,77a9,77G3,82,S,C1'„103.`3,1050.I,-^i, ^,t52d,240,254,255 ...................mo.,.o..a......,..,.....a.,...a.a...aa.es.>

State v. Vi.ta3:e, 1994,9b,oh1.o9aPt^,3d,&`i95,^r39,o.e,2d,12i7,7.2i9............ ^,45

State v. iXiloy 47,ohitz,ST,3d,20,546,14F,2d,937,1984 ...................... 4r45

State tr. vga€.scm.154,ohl.o app ;2d,150,^?003,oka:ies,4S4i4,7t3:i,sao,2d,S78,E 17 _ _ _ 11'5

Sclisucic va U.S. 19€39., 489,U.S.,705,717g7I8.1f39,S,C":^,1443,J.U3,:t,e?.,'sJ 734. 3I t5

LUNA V.RUSSELL(1994) 70 ohio ST 3d, 651,561 ................................ -3 <<5

l' V. F3.ASI-IS.Iv'(=TC}Iu 542.U.S.296,S,CT,2S31,t7S. ''^ASH, 20CP4 .. , . . . - . . . 1i1?

V. N^,'t^ JFASEX 530.tT.S. 466,12CD,S,CT,2348,147,Lad,2d,435,(2000).. lb` t7

STATE V. P.M'^.' 112,ohio^,,ST,3d,4212,$F>G,ne,2d,73S,ohao,2LY')7 ,.^ X ♦ r., t 81

K.93:L OF OHIC} V. LIGON 179,oh.to,st,3ti, a44,90i,ne,2d,1C311,ohioA6085,544,o;a3o .^^ 1-7

sTtTF, Or (IrSl.ta V. SESSlU.I.19.oEaao,st,3d 422 ,2007 onio 256 17tM£E OF OTili} V. MK MENtY APP NO. C,k1,47-3142 20€}$-oohto-l007• .. m..®..Y.. ^ t^

V. U Y3N NE @D, 2008 WL, 2$33644,ohaio app k3th • Y ♦ „ , ^1 4-7

V. KALISH 120 obio S`C.3d.23.2008-otaio-4912,869,M. 2d,124 .... .» . f.. 017,tf

"uTr?,:^fa^ V. 13R()U'R."E 109 <it'3:'to ST,3dp7.404,845,1,W,,C,D,5?2,54a,20E)(i,oh:'tor3,.703........ ►piW9A

STATL V. T-71:i>TCSta? 113,ohio,app 3d, 575,729,14E,2d 420,ohio app EFictzsL 1999.....- loLt?

011I0 SU!'PMU; C T DISCIPLINARY UtX7U5FT, V,,,LA-NDIS 1Z4,o}a.io,ST,:3d,508 . .... .. ^ 168124,r,e,2st,361,2010..327 *** (20felo4ay aour ci.va.i's Iae got 60 days)

V. mtU"Y NTE,2d, 1999, tiI. 760923 obio app 12th cT3.st..1991; ......_. le,la,W

V. IRMI3S 2010, T1I 3861061 ,2010 ataa.ca 4849,app 7th dist 2010.09-W24• .. lo,i:L t\4

STATE V. PARM, 2010,1iL 10179% ohio app 7th dist 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (,,hAX

TL" V. AI?KTTl,S 2010 6iL 334972,ohio opi) 5th c2df.sL 2010 ............ . .. .... ... .. it, ii8

^TB V. kfIKo1.A..7CZ1K 2010, WL,125998 oksio app 8th dist 2010 .............. .. 1cj1;.yM

, V. tLA3,,.tSRJ .120 ohio,ST,3c3,23,2008,oh:tcs,49I2,869,rse 2ce,124 ............ .. lot\9mTATFV. -^^T NE,2d,2001, 11i., 188761 otaio app 6th dist L'eb, o9.20m . ..... ,. Lo t48

,^"T.^1TE V. 7,Al9SS 139,ohio,app 3d,617,744,rae,2d,l260,oha.o,app ECh dist 2000...

STATE V. P:t31MLA 2010,1,Tf,,2802246,ohso a A 2nd dist,2C#I0 ofi,Fo 3354 citing...( ^ R^r^ ^(y d, - --^g t}^^ ^,^ a ^^^y three D.U.13s N,y

STATE V. HIM 26110,frI,334909 eahica app 2nd dist 2010 ........................ to

±±±E I,s Ac^c

,' ^ tsa ^0(--l D ^ •t^-.-. ---.-.-^

\^^ G^U` SbtJ lS O6lr,`

1 -23 a^--

_ 54-

C^ w C- ^ ALO-T

1^ ^^ ^w ^ ^L^ . < < < ^g

^ky^ WK

-Lcacr

=L i L-54c.

6 p*- {^ ^^\q s

OcyfV^ li W6

STATEMENT OF FACTS V1bau.^ QA5L ;

This case arises from a single misdemeanor count ofg

Clj,441R.C. 4510.14 ( D.U.S) i.e., driving under suspension

&N'^,R.C. 4511.19 (A)(I) misdemeanor code (D.U.I)operating under theinf u ence..^

C.^O^ R.C. 2925.11 misdemeanor possession of marijuana

U44c.IR.C. 4511.21 misdemeanor speeding...

The indictment was a four count misdemeanor indictment. There

were no prior misdemeanor d.u.i's listed on the indictment and

there was 'NO SPECIFICATION" listed on the indictment with any

kind of statutory code, numerical designation, elements, nothing

legal was present to inform MR. Harsh he would be sentenced-to a

specification of being a multi prior felony d.u.i offender...

Further the defendant does not even have a felony record and'

the specification he was sentenced to R.C. 2941.1416 or

R.C. 2941.1413 DOES NOT EVEN PERTAIN TO HIM...

Moreover the BUTLER COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE is under a

investigation for doing the same egregious acts as they have done

here to Mr. Harsh sentencing citizens to unidicted specifications

the defendant was never indicted or informed or even found guilty

of any kind of specification... so how in the world could he be

sentenced to any kind of specification // ? (ONLY IN BUTLER COUNTY)Subsequently this was a four count misdemeanor code's

indictment... that is it and nothing more... The defendant was

very innocent and proceeded to jury trial after telling JUDGE

PAT ONEY, that he did refuse her ( 3) three month plea deal

agreement... I told her i was innocent and the cop was lying

about the marijuana, there was no evidence except the so called

invisible baggie of marijuana, that is it only fabricated

evidence that never exsisted and i was going to trial to prove

my innocense...

a

After refusing the three month plea agreement deal i

proceeded to trial. Iwent to trial with a four countimisdemeanor

code indictment.Iwas going to prove the cop was a liar and

the marijuana did not exsist... So before trial even started

and not in court and not on the record and not before any kind

of judge and with no kind of good excuse to remove anything from

the recrod the prosecutor i.e., DAVID L KASH did whisper to my

paid attorney at law+rhey BOB i am going to drop count 2 possess-

ion of marijuana'y.. R.C. 2941.33 NOLLE PROSEQUI WAS VIOLATED

CRIM,R 7 (D) and CRIM R, 48 WAS VIOLATED...this was illegal

egregious actions again by the prosecutor. There is no motion to

remove or I:no:) kind of video audio record... because it did not

happen legallyoso I was legally to be discharged and reindicted.

NEVERTHELESS the judge did file an order stating that it did

all take place on the record but that is a fraud and cover up

for the massive amounts of corruption in butler county,ohio where

they do nothing legal or by law...as is manifest in this case...

THAT RIGHT THERE DEPRIVED THE TRIAL COURT OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION... AGAIN ONLY A BUTLER COUNTY MAJIC SHOW...

The prosecutor DAVID L. KASH was then caught red handed with yet

more egregious conduct unbecoming. He had told his secretary and

Ms. Amy Withrow to alter the indictment to ad a multi felony

offender specification either RC. 2941.1413 or RC. 2941.1416 to

M.r HARSH"S INDICTMENT and after they refused prosecutor DAVID L.

KASH TOLD them to alter the certified pieces of paper that he had

received from the middletown and maimisburg and franklin courts.

The prosecutor knew these pieces of paper he had in his possess-

ion would not muster certified judgment entrys of prior d.u.i.

convictions against MR. harsh. The original's were also obtained

by the defendant and was going to rebuttthem in trial..

The prosecutor then ordered his secretary to alter these

certified pieces of paper to make them appear as legal certified

prior judgment entrys on MR.HARSH. KASH had his secretary add

MR. HARSH full name and date of birth and social security number

to these already certified pieces of paper from other courts then

had her forge the judges signature on these document's...^LJ^^ (P Ic^4V^^c^

This kind of behavior was clearly illegal and also deprived the

court of subject matter jurisdiction.... My whole jury trial was

a sham and it is all in the record my attorney Robert Rettich

showed the trial court judge and moved for acquittal because of

the yet again illegal actions by the prosecutor...Then he went an

found another set and handed them to the baliff,so i do not know

what this court has before you, but look at the trial transcripts

and audio and video... When the prosecutor was caught red handed

altering these documents he stated " SO WHAT IT IS A GRIEVABLE

OFFENSE AND I"M IMMUNE" I need criminal investigation into these

allegations or special prosecutor please this is blatant criminal

behavior in a supposed court of law ................... help me...

Well after all that corruption i go ahead and tell the jury the

cop is a liar and i am being indicted for possession of marijuana

which is still on my indictment and the cop was lying to get me

to plead guilty to d.u.i alcohol or drugs... I knew i was

innocent and these were bogus charges i could prove in a court of

law...

Then the prosecutor smelled defeat so he has the cop which was

the state's only witness tell the jury that MR. harsh had a:.( 3.6

gram baggie of marijuana find him guilty of d.u.i. so i jumped up

in the middle of trial and said that is fabricated bullshit... I

never had any marijuana and the cop and prosecutor are lying to

you... make them show you the fabricated evidence... then the

judge says order in the court...disregard allMR. Harsh's last

statements and please proceed MR. LIE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.and

he goes on and tells the jury the marijuana is at the crime lab

^

at an undisclosed crime lab,he did not know which one. The

defense objected and asked well where the hell is the invisable

evidence located /? The prosecutor jumps up all red in the

face and states object,object we do not have the marijuana its

at the crime lab for safe keeping.... O.M.G. can you believ this

ladys and gentlemen of the high court... I WAS found guilty of

d.u.i. on an invisable baggie of marijuan4that never exsisted an

nqone ever did see... (ONLY IN BUTLER COUNTY) PLEASE INVESTIGATE

OR HAVE A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATE,PLEASE IN THE INTEREST

OF JUSTICE... I RECEIVED A SEVEN YEAR MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCE

FOR ASMALL BAGGIE OF MARIJUANA THAT I DI-D rOT^ HAVE AND NOBODY

DID... That is why the prosecutor could not drop the fraudulant

charges in open court because i was innocent and he knew this

would prove my innocense and he did not have a case if he would

have follwed the law RC. 2941.33... THIS LAW WAS VIOLATED...Cpt^1R"4a

Following my complete sham jury trial after all the egregious

violations of the prosecutor and judge i was found guilty by

the jury because of the fraudulant evidence i.,e(MARIJUANA) that

was never produced at my jury trial and that never exsisted but

i was indicted on this charge and it was never legally dismissed.

Wherefore the jury found me guilty of misdemeanor ( D.U.I)

AS on the jury veridct form and in accordance with law RC.2945.75

so pursuant to the iurys verdict misdemanor D.U.I AND MISdemanor

driving under suspension... That is it7that is all and nothing

further.... look at my indictment and look at my jury verdict

forms... i was indicted on misdemeanor's i was fraudulantly found

guilty of misdemeanors... that is all

Therefore i proceed to appeal court and my appeal is denied

along with all my other highly meritous motions... STATE OF OHIO

VS. ROBERT HARSH CA 2007-03-083 CERTIFIED STATING" DO NOT USE AS

ANY AUTHORITY IN LAW, DO NOT TYPE PUBLISH OR PRINT IN ANY FORM...

TOTAL MANIFEST INJUSTICE AND SHAM APPEAL,NO COURT HAS RULED ON MY

CLAIMS... MY JUDGMENT ENTRY IS VOID ON IT"S FACE,ILLEGAL SENTENCE

DOCTRINE, VOID JUDGMENT DOCTRINE,NO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION..

5

It is stated in 12 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Lax . 2^, e^.^ t'nat:

"there is a very ciearly defined attempt in the latest cases in the United States,howe-ver, to escape from the position that the judgment of a court havirigjurisdiction to hear and determine is concIusive by adding to the definition of`jurisdiction' a new element, viz, that jurisdiction is not, merely the power to hearand determine,

but also the power.to render the,particular judgrnent which wasrendered;" (Itaiics mine p, 7p,C^ zIV2b'^_ t7N0^.o L^?^C^"J ^V9 f^PMf.r^

e;" ! l ,

and cites in support thereof cases decided by the supreme court of the United States, and

decisions from the courts of last resort of several states: _On naee 251, supra, the following

conclusion is reached:

"The question, thered e; cannot be said to be definitely decided. The great weightattached to the deeisions of the supreme court of the United States ^makes it atleast probable tliat, if that court continues to hold the views expressed ih,the latecases cited,s,u^pra, the courts of the various states wifI sooner or later adopttliem;but the decisions thus f•ar scarcely authorize a stronger statement thanis a tfl^dency in the later cases to hold that jurisdict that there

ion includes, not onlv the`po}ver to hear and determine, but also the power to render the paf7icularyiidgment entered in the particular case. "

/Black. Jud58 holds that jurisdiction to render the particular sentence imposed is

as essential to its validity as the jurisdiction of the person or the subject-matter. (See, also, &x

arte COK 3 Hasb. 530 3 Idaho 530 32 P. 197 95 AmStRe0

29; Ex parte BURDEN 92Miss. 14 , 45

So 1 131 Am.St.Re . 511 . In commenting on certain decisions which heldthat if a

court had authority to pronounce sentence, and, while in the legitimate exerciseof its power,

committed a manifest error, in the number of years of confinement imposed on the defendant, the

sentence was not void, but erroneous, and refused to release the prisoner on habeas corpus, the

leamed author says:

"But the argument is far from satisfactory.fa It involves the error of overlooking thect that jurisdiction to render the particul ar entenee impose ,s equa ,y asessential to its vali ^ty as the ur i iJ js ct on of the person or sub et-matter. f either ^of these three elemente ;s u,antin th, g en vow, in respect to t esentehc, t e court has preclse t y^

g e jud my e uns iron w i rcJ c e statute grves rt,-no

^'4d^^mE7v^uaL aac^y 11^q^`t=-^C- RfssEJ ^fl^iCa^ ^? ^_^d.s^l, `i^NX}

more and no less; and if the statute prescribes that the sentence shall be for notless than three years the court is utterly without power to sentence for one year.This seems too plain for argument. And, indeed, the great preponderance ofauthority sustains the proposition that if the court did not have the authority torender the particular sentence; if the sentence is different fdom that prescr.ibed byiaw, or is below the minimum or above the maximum,- that is good ground forreieasing the prisoner on habeas corpus."

In support of that proposition tite author cetesr Ex parte Lanae. 18 Wali. 163; Ex Darte

N'rillizan, 4 Wall. 131; Ex porte Wilson, 114 U. S . 417 5 Sup Ct. Pcp 935; Ex yarte Bernert 7

Pac. Coast Law J. 460; Ex parte PaQe, 49 Mo. 291; * 199 People v. Walters. 15 Abb N C 461;

People v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y 559; Ex parte Kearnv, 55 Cal. 212; In re Pettv, 22 Kan. 477• Ex

parte Bulger, 60 Cal. 438; Miller v. Snvder. 6 Ind 1; Ex parte Smith, 2 Nev. 338. In Ex varte

Lange. supra, the point is illustrated in the following clear and forcibic manner. The court says:

"If a justice of the peace, having jurisdiction to fine for a misdemeanor, and withthe party charged properly before him, should render a judgment that he be hung,it would simply be void. Why void? Because he had no power to render such ajudgment. So, if a court of general jurisdiction should, on an indictment for libel,render a judgment of death or confiscation of property, it would, for the samereason, be void."

In Ex narte Paee. 49 Mo. 291, a case, in principle, very similar to the one at bar, the court

says:

"The statute provides that persons convicted of grand larceny shall be punished asfollows: First. Stealing a horse, mare, gelding, colt, filly, mule, or ass, byimprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding seven years. Second. In all othercases of grand larceny, by like imprisonment, not exceeding five years. Wagn. St.p. 457, § 26. In no case, therefore, does the statute authorize, for any of theoffenses which constitute grand larceny, a sentence for more than seven years'imprisonment. Hence the judgment for imprisonment for ten years was inviolation of the statute, and palpably illegal. It would have been reversible on writof error or appeal, as a matter of course. Can this court furnish the requiredremedy in this proceeding? The general principle is that on a hearing of a writ ofhabeas corpus, when it appears that the prisoner is detained by virtue of the finaljudgment or decree of any competent court of civil or criminal jurisdiction, noinquiry into the regularity of the proceedings which resulted in the judgment canbe had. For all such errors or ;rregularities the law provides other remedies, ***But the statute, by an express enactment, declares that when a prisoner is brought

up on habeas corpus, if it appears that he is in custody by virtue of process fromany court legally constituted, or issued by any officer in the service of judicialproceedings before him, such prisoner can be discharged only in one of thefollowing cases: First. Where the jurisdiction of such court or officer has beenexceeded, either as to matter, piace, sum, or person. *** Sixth. Where the processis not authorized by any judgment, order, or decree, nor by any provision of law.Wagn. St. p. 690, § 35. It seems to me that the court, in passing the sentence,exeee e tts Jurtsdiction in the matter, and that it did not act by authority of anyprovision of law. The application, therefore, I think, comes within the meaning ofthe statute." ,7`y,e ,FIJR-,v,1i44ZW-f N/-W^t3

The provisions of the statute of Missouri just quoted are substantially the same as the

provisions of Chapter 2725 of the Revised Code Statutes of Ohio, which prescribes the cases in

which a prisoner may be released on habeas corpus by this court. The court further says:

"But in the case just quoted it will be perceived that the error was one of fact,provable by extrinsic evidence decors the record. The record, as it stood,

warranted the judgment, and the error of fact produced the difficulty. In such acase the court would not, in a collateral proceeding, undertake to revise thejudgment. $ut_in_the case we are now_considerin the question presented is fardifferent. The error here does not arise out of matter of fact, but is patent on theface of the record. The record proper shows that the judgment of the court inpassing sentence was illegal; that it was not simply erroneous or irregular, butabsolutely void, as exceeding the jurisdiction of the court, and not being theexercise of an authority prescribed by law."

In People v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559, the court states:

"A party held only by virtue ofjudgments thus pronounced, and therefore void forwant of jurisdiction, or by reason of the excess of jurisdiction, is not put to hiswrit of error, but may be released by habeas corpus. It will not answer to say thata court having power to give a particular judgment can give any judgment, andthat a judgment not authorized by law, and contrary to law, is merely voidable,and not void, and must be corrected by error. This would be trifling with the law;'the liberty of the citizen, and the protection thrown about his person by the bill ofrights and the constitution, and creating a judicial despotism. It would be to defeatjustice, nullify the writ of habeas corpus by the merest technicality, and the mostartificial process of reasoning. *** No court is or can be competent to pronouncea sentence and give judgment in open and palpable violation of a positive statute,and a judgment thus given is void. With us all punishments areprescri-bed_bystatute, as well as to character as extent and a sentence not conformable to law, asnot warranted by statute; or which is in excess of the legal punishment, is ultravires, and like ever other act, whether judicial or ministerial, done without legal

8A.

authority, is void."

The opinion of the court in that case is a very able and exhaustive one, and peculiarly

applicable to the case at bar. In Ex parte Reed. 100 U. S. 13, the court states:

"If a magistrate having authority to fine for assault and battery should sentencethe offender to be imprisoned in the penitentiary, or to suffer the punishmentprescribed for homicide, his iudgment would be as much a nullity as if thepreliminary jurisdiction to hear and determine had not existed. Every act of acourt beyond its jurisdiction is void."

The sentence(s) in Appellant's case are not warranted by statute, are sub-minimum of the

punishment(s) prescribed by law, and are absolutely void; and when a prisoner is held under

such sentence(s), and the matter is properly brought to the attention of this Court or any other

court for that matter, it has authority to inquire into the matter, and to discharge the prisoner, if it

be found that the court had no jurisdiction/authority, under the 1aw, to render the particular

judgment(s) rendered, or to pass the sentence(s) imposed. In Ex narte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651,

4 Sup. Ct. Ren. 152, in regard to this class of cases, the court states:

"It is, however, to be carefully observed that this latter principle does notauthorize the court to convert the writ of habeas corpus into a writ of error, bywhich the errors of law committed by the court that passed the sentence can bereviewed here; for if that court had jurisdiction of the party, and of the offense forwhich he was tried, and has not exceeded its powers in the sentence which itpronounced, this court can inquire no further." (Italics mine)

In Appellant's case, the court did exceed its powers in the sentence(s), which it

pronounced. There was no provision of law authorizing such sentence(s), and they are void.

Therefore, Appellant submits that jurisdiction / authority to render the particular sentence(s)

imposed is as essential to the validity of the judgment as the jurisdiction of the person or subject-

matter, and that the sentence(s) of the W County Court of Common Pleas under which the

said Appellant is held a prisoner was pronounced without authority of law, and is void, and thatn

^ohe/^F lhwcsl, 5"tJ('l hc 45&5^Ov t I, IKw_4"'(,_ VS(C.) u tOE.3 tuakt oc- 4nSa_-ts Cacq)tt^ .vr.^^z.^fff`^^^"'^. `, ' ••

^

Judges have no inherent power to create sentences. Griffin & Katz, Ohio Felony Sentencing Law(2008) 4, Section 1:3, fii. 1. See also Woods v. Telb. 89 Ohio St.3d at 507-509. 733 N.E.2d 110(describing the legislative intent behind anew, cornprehensiv, sentencing struct.zre, inctudin6postrelease control). Rather, judges are duty-bound to appiy sentencing laws as thcy are vvritten. SeeState v. Thomas (1996). 111 Ohio Ann.3d 51O. .. 5. 12. 676N1.2d 903. "(T?he only sentence whi h a --i-court may impose is that provided for by starate. /^ coru has no power to substitate a different s nTenc::for that provided for by statute or one that is either greater or lesser than that provided for by law."Colearove, 175 Ohio St. at 438. 25 0.O.2d 447, 1951_V ._1P.2d 811. The failure to irnpose a statutorilymandated period of postrelease control is more than administrative ar cierical error. It is an **340 actthat lacks both statutory and constitutionai authority.

No court has the authority to impose a sentence that is contrary to law. Colegrove.. 175 Ohio St. at438. 25 0.O.2d 447. 195 N.E.2d 811. We reaffrnn that vital principle today and reiterate that a judgemust conform to the General Assembly's mandate in imposing postrelease-control sanctions as part of acriminal sentence. Although the interests in frnality of a sentence are important, they cannot trump theinterests ofjustice, which require a judge to follow the letter of the law in sentcncing a defendant.

Other states' courts hold similarly, using the voidness doctrine as well as a related theory, theillegal-sentence doctrine.FN1 See, e.g., Summers v. State (Tenn.2007), 212 S.W.3d 251, 256(describing a sentence imposed in direct contravention of a statute as illegal and subject to correction atany time); State v. Gavden (2006). 281 Kan. 290. 292-293, 130 P.3d 108 ("A sentence for which nostatutory authority exists does not conform to statutory provisions and is, therefore, within thedefinition of an illegal sentence"); Sullivan v. State (2006), 366 Ark. 183. 234 S. VZ.3d 285 ("Where thelaw does not authorize the particular sentence pronounced by a trial court, the sentence is unauthorizedand illegal"); Mizell v. State (Tex.Crim:App.2003), 119 S.W.3d 804_ 806 ("A sentence that is outsidethe maximum or minimum range of punishment is unauthorized by law and therefore illegal"); UnitedStates v. Greatwalker (C.A.8, 2002), 285 F.3d 727, 729 ("A sentence is illegal when it is not authorizedby the judgment of conviction *99 or when it is greater or less than the pennissible statutory penalty forthe crime").

LOOK WHAT THEY DID TO MR. HARSH CRUEL AND UNUSUAL

FNl. The term "illegai" generally means "forbidden by law." Black's Law Dictionary (9thEd.2009) 815. It accurately summarizes a judge's action in failing to do what the GeneralAssembly has commanded with respect to STATUTORY GUIDELINES.

LOOK WHAT THEY DID TO MR. HARSH CRUELAND UNUSUALFurthermore, A guilty verdict shall state either the degree of the offense of which the offender is

found guilty, or that such additional element or elements are present.**738 Otherwise, a guilty verdictconstitutes a finding of guilty of the least degree of the offense charged." P,C. ot9 4 S.-7S( AXal

This court has repeatedly stated that " 'if the meaning of a statute is clear on its face, then it must beapplied as it is written."' Hartmann v. Duffev, 95 Ohio St.3d 456, 2002-Ohio-2486. 768 N.E.2d 1170, I& quoting Lake Hosn. Svs. v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn. (1994). 69 Ohio St.3d 521. 524. 634 N.E.2d 611."Thus, if the statute is unambiguous and definite, there is no need for further interpretation." Id. "Toconstrue or interpret what is already plain is not interpretation but legislation, which is not the functionof the courts." Lake Hosp. Sys., 69 Ohio St.3d at 524, 634 N.E.2d 611, quoting Iddinas v. Jefferson

IDF

Cty School Dist. Bd. of Edn (1951), 155 Ohio S` 287. 44 O.O. ?94_ 98 N.E.2d 827.

The statntory requirement certainly imposes no unreasonable burden on lawyers or triat iudges. R.C.

2945.75(A) plainly requires that in order to find a defendant guuity of"an ofiense *** of more sarious

degree," the guilty verdict must either state "the degree of the offense of which the offender is found

guilty" or state that "additional element or elements are pzesent." R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) also provides, ir.

the vezy next sentence, what must occur if this reouir..menis not m-.`Otherwtse- a gu.iiT verdlci

constitutes a finding of guilty of the least degree of the offense charg ed" When tire General A ssembiv

has written a clear and complete statute, this court will not use additional toois to produce an alternative

meaning: There is dennitely no degree , aggravated elements, culpable mernal state, numerical

designation or even a statutory violation on mr . Flarsh's jury verdict form ... nothing legal is present ali

is void ad initio, no subject matter jurisdiction to sentence beyond the jurys verdict forrri..TJNTJSUALLOOK WHAT THEY DID TO MR. HARSH CRUE? AND

Moreover, 2929.13(G)(1), which imposes a maudato sixty-day term of local incarceration uoon

first-time felony DUI oidenders, specrticatty states uie ronowufl-.r3 ` -- ------

`

V

6^^^--R Jc^d^^

-7 qt€^

J°.,l

V

V

^^ ^ F t €(^^^^`^

,.

e cserve the mandatory term of iocal incarceration in prison. A mandatory term of local incarceration

imposed under division (G)(1) of this section is not subject to extension under section 2967.11 of the

Revised Code, to a period of post-release control under section 2967.18 of the Revised Code, or to ariy

other Revised Code provision that nertains to a prison term.FC4 (Emphasis added.)

ourt shall not s°ntence tne offender to a prison te:xn. and shail not speciry that the offender is toTh

FN4. The legislature's intent that a first-time offender of a felony DUI shall not serve aprison term is reiterated in R.C. 2929.14. R.C. 2929.14(A) states that "[flf the courtimposing a sentence upon an offender for a felony elects or is required to impose a prisonterm on the offender pursuant to this chapter and is not prohibited by division (G)(1) ofsection 2929.13 of the Revised Code from imposing a prison term on the offender, the courtshall impose a definite prison term that shall be one of the following ***." (Emphasis

added.)Absent ambiguity, a court must give effect to the plain meaning of a statute. State ex re1.

Penninston v Gundler (1996) 75 Ohio St 3d 171 173 . 661 N.E.2d 1049 citing State v.

Waddell (19951 71 Ohio St.3d 630 . 631 646 N.E.2d 821. A plain reading of R-C.2929:14(E)(4), which addresses consecutive sentencing when there are "multiple prisonterms" in conjunction with R.C. 2929.13(G)(11, which prohibits a court to impose a"prisonterm" on a first-time DUI felony offender, leads to the conclusion that the jail term of afirst-time DUI felony offender cannot be imposed consecutively to a prison termunder R_C

2929.14(E)(4).

^^

11

4, ^/^ b3? L a ^ ^`^ n ^.^ `^^ L^

ca,9 ^

•---

--------ALTW ^^JJ-E-aL

L\,• , Q-a a l_

R 1 4a^7 ^6A7, ^-plCb 1`1 Cff -033-q

Ik

PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1:RIGHT TO INDICTP7ENT & VALID COP7PLAINT

SECTION 10 ART I OF OHIO CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD

TO ANSWER ACRIME UNLES BY PRESENTATION TO GRANJURY*** THIS PROVISION IS

GUARANTEED ... ALSO IN CRIP4,R,7(A)(B) ALSO RC 2941.03... ALSO 5th U.S.C.A

CRIM,R 3 . s-e ^•e ag^l ^413 54^c^.r^c ►4l+,ou (^(of oN T%SECTION 10 ART I OF OHIO CONSTITUTION PROVIDES NO PERSON SHALL

BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CRIPE UNLESS BY PRESENTATION TO A GRAND JURY.***

This provision guarantees the accused that the essential facts constitutuing

the offense for which he is tried will be found in the indictment of the

grand jury... HARRIS V. STATE 1932,125,ohio ,st,257,264, Where one of

the vital elements identifying the crime is omitted from the indictment

it is defective and cannot be cured by the court as such a procedure would

permit the court to convict the accused on a charge essentially differnt

from that found by the grand jury. ID @ STATE V. WOZINIACK 1961,172,

ohio st,517,520,[10 o.o.3d 58]

CRIP4 R,7 (A)(B) THE INDICTP4ENVT AND THE INFOR24ATION

(A) FELONIES SHALL BE PROSECUTED BY INDICT'PEUVT OF GRAND JURY***

(B) NATURE AND CONTENTS,The indictment shall be in accordance with Crim R,6

(C) AND (F) ***The indictment shall be in the consice language of the

statue and have all of the elements of the statue to be proved along with

the numerical designation of the statue the defendant is alleged to have

comitted***5th U.S.C.A PROVIDES: That an accused be tried only on those offense's

and elements returned by a grand jury ... SIRONE v. U.S. 361,212,217,19,80

S,CT,270,4,led,2d,252,(1960) NICHOLS v. U.S. 511,U.S.,738,749,114,S,CT

1921,2d,745... GETSY V. MITCHELL ...495,f,3d,295,C.A,6th,2007

A judgment by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction can never be

waived and is VOID AD INITIO ... The subject matter ;jurisdiction can be

challenged at any time and any where either collaterally, directly or

indirectly in equity... It is a condition of the courts ability to here the

case on the charges,and a court acting without subject=matter jurisdiction

any proclamation is void ad initio SEE... PRATTS V. HURLEY (2004) 102 ohio

ST,3d,81,806,ne,2d,992,QUOTING*** U.S. V. COTTON (2002) 535,U.S.122 s.c

ct,1782,152,L,ED,2d,860CRIP9INAL R, 3 ; COP7PLAINT, shall state essential facts of the offense

charged,It shall state the numerical code of the statue to be chargedand shall be upon oath*** P9R.. HARSH WAS NEVER INDICTED ON THE OFFENSESHE WAS MALICELY SENTENCED TO AND HIS CONVICTION AND SENTENCE CAN NOT STAND..

13

Rc. ag y 1.1`t^3 T^ 94 oN^,uL «rftzw+- oc ^ rtN^lt-ck[S 2941.1413 SPECIFICATION CONCERNING ADDITbgNAL PRISON TERP7 FOR REPEAT

FELONY O.V.I. QFFENDERS...[S 2941.1416 SPECIE'TCATION CONCERNING MISDEP9EANORS

(A) IP4POSITION OF A P7ANDATORY PRISON TERP4, OF ONE, TWO *** or FIVE YEARS

upon an offender ubder division (G)(2) of section 2929.13 of the revised

code is precluded unles the indictment, count in the indictment or infor

mation charging a "FELONY" violationof section 4511.19 of the revised code

(EMPHASIS ADDED) that the offender specifys within twenty years previously

has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five or more"EQUIVILANT FELONY

OFFENSE" This specification shalLbe state in the indictment***

SPECIFICATION( CITE CODE) The grand jurors ( OR INSER THE PROSECUTING

ATTORNEYS NArIE WHW APPROPRIATE) further find and "SPECIFY" that within

twenty years ofcommitting the offense previously has been convicted of

or pleaded guilty to five or more "EQUIVILENT FELONY OFFENSE"S)

This plain meaning of the statue state that the prosecutor has

to take this specification to the GRAND JURY and has to have listed five

or more prior felony offense's. This should be manifest to any layman and

very manifest to any person with a law degree... you would think so anyway

it seems alot of morons have law degree's these days,i guess if you have the

money you can buy anything...ARGUl4EVT IN LAW AND ORDER

A, PIR. HARSH HAS NO PRIOR FELONY RECORD... NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL...

PIR. HARSH HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF ANY KIND OF FELONY

MR. HARSH WAS NEVER INDICTED ON EITHER OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS...

PIR. HARSH WAS NEVER FOUND GUILTY OF EITHER OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS...

E. PIIt. HARSH CERTIFYS NEITHER OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS OR FOR THAT P4ATTER

ANY KIND OF SPECIFICATION CONCERNING PIR. HARSH WAS EVER PRESENTED TO

THE GRAND JURY PERTAINING TO PIR. HARSH.. . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . • • • .

F THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE HAD NO SUBJECT P4ATTER JURISDICTION TO SENTENCE

PIR. HARSH TO EITHER OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS... ALL IS VOID AD INITIO.....

NEITHER OF THESE TWO STATUES ARE ON PIR. HARSH INDICTMEA7T OR INFORPIATION...

THIS IS A P7ANIFEST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY AGAINST PIR. HARSH...... ..

^o BUTLER COUNTY PROSECUTORS ARE PIAKING IT A HABIT TO BRAKE THE LAW AND

SENTENCE CITIZENS TO UNINDICTED OFFENSES...LOOK AT THE NEWS PAPER A SPECIAL

PROSECUTOR IS ALSO REQUESTED IN THIS CASE SUB JUDICE... HELP PRESERVE JUSTIC-0ALLoSO FAR HAS BEEN A LEGALLY NULLITY AND SHOULD BE PUT IN THE SANIE POSITIONAS IF THERE WAS NEVER A JUDGP7IIVT..ALL STARE DECIS75 STATE"S THE SAPE THING"^

iq

ROBZiTO V. PiA%WELL (1967) 10 ohio st,2d,266,267,268,39,oo 2d,744,ne,2d,233.

State v. Simpkins 117,ohio,st,3d,420,(2008) ohio 1197,884,ne,2d,568,@912..

State v. Hamely 142,ohio,ap,p,3d,615,756,ne,2d,702,app,8th dist 2001

RUSSEL v. UNITED STATES 1962,369,U.S.,749,770,82,S,CT „ 1038,1050.Led,2d,240,254,255 ..............................................................

State v. Vitale, 1994,96,ohio,app,3d,695,699,ne,2d,1277,1279.....;......

*State v. Dilley 47,ohio,ST,3d,20,546,NE2d,937,1984...^^MK;4^m"^t ^..

State v. Watson 154,ohio app 2d,150,2003,ohio,4664,796,ne,2d,578,@ 17

Schmuck v. U.S. 1989., 489,U.S.,705,717,718.109,S,CT,1443,103,Led,2d 734.

THere is a plethoric amount of case law and ciminal rules and constitui-

tional violations apparent from this case sub judice.... There is amanifest

injustice right in front of the court... Plain and simple the defendant

was nevixindicted on informed of or told about any kind of specification...

The defendant was never even found guilty of either of these kinds of

specifications or any other kind of specifications....

There was only a malicious abuse of discretion and criminal activity

as usual in BUTLER COUNTY,OHIO as is apparent from the record and all the

news paper articles on the subject . i only supplied the court with a couple

news paper articles aboyt corruption in the BUTLER COUNTY PROSECUTORS office

there were atleats twenty more articles published about corruption in

BUTLER COUNTY, COURT"S AND Iam a victim also...

Habeas corpus will lie were there is no adequate remedy of law and appa>

rent unlawful restraint of liberty... as is definately in this case sub;judic

;SEE... LUNA V. RUSSELL 1994, 70 OHIO ST3d,651,561, the court had no

subject matter jurisdiction to sentence me to any kind of unindicted offense

that was not taken before a grand jury, with all the elements and facts and

of course a numerical designation.... P7ANIFEST INJUSTICE, IPM1EDIATE RELEASE

IS SO REQUIRED TO PRESERVE JUSTICE.... HELP.... I HAD NO APPEAL PROCESS

WHATSOEVER._. THE 12th dist STATED DO NOT USE AS ANY AUTHORITY IN LAW...

DO NOT TYPE PUBLISH OR PRINT IN ANY'FORN A CLEAR SHAPI APPEAL PROCESS ......

LOOK AT MY FATALLY FLAWED INDICTl4QVT I APPEALLED NOTHING IS ON IT, NO

ELEP7ENTS, NO PRIOR ANYTHING, NO SPECIFICATION NUPIERICAL DESIGNATIONS,NO

CULPABLE P4EBIVTAL STATE, NO STATUE OF SPECIFICATION ONLY A P4ISDEP4EANOR CODE...

THIS COURT SHOULD HOLD FOR IlM1EDIATE RELEASE OF DEFENDANT BEING HE

WAS NEVER LEGALLY FACING ANY KIND OF PRISON TERP4 AND HAS BEEN iIIQLAWFULLY

INCARCERATED FOR OVER FIVE YEARS... TERRIBLE P9ANNIFEST INJUSTICE....

.15

IT is well settled law in the state of OHIO that an indictment not

not charging the offense and all the elements to be proved is VOID...

SEE... STATE OF OHIO V. Mc I^ICHOLAS 139,ohio.app 3d,252,255,256,743NE,2d,500 12th dist, (2000)

SEE .. HENDERSON V. CARDWELL C.A. 6th 1970,426,f2d,150,152, 1970

Furthermore it is also well settled law in the state of OHIO that

the filing of a valid complaint is necessary for the courts jurisdictiom and

an order issued without jurisdiction to do so is "VOID AD INITIO" OR

"VOID JUDGPENT ENTRY" SEE... CRIM,R 3, CRIM R, 12 .................

SEE... NEW ALBANY V. DALTON 104.ohio,app 3d,307,661,NE 2d 1132,ohio app 10 dist, may 30, 1999...

THEREFORE IT IS P4IANIFEST FROP4 THE PETITIONERS INDICTMENT THAT THERE

WAS NEVER ANY KNID OF SPECIFICATION ON THE DEFENDANTS INDICTMENT...

SEE,... STATE OF OHIO V. ROBERT HARSH CR2006-03-0500 BUTLER COUNTY.....

THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO AUTOMATIC DISCHARGE IN THIS CASE ....

THE APPEAL COURT RULED IN STATE V. ROBERT HARSH CA 2007-03-083 .."DON NOT

TYPE PUBLISH OR PRINT OUR OPION IN ANY FORM, AND DO NOT USE OUR OPION IN

ANY AUTHORITY IN LAW" WE KNOW PN.t. HARSH IS UNLAWFULLY IPIPRISONED AS IS

PIANIFEST ... AGAIN FOR THE RECORD P4Y PAID TRIAL ATTORNEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT

RC. 2941.1413 SPECIFICATION FOR FIVE PRIOR FELONY D.U.I"S BEING PLACED

AGAINST PIE... HE DID NOT EVEN PUT IT ON MY NOTICE OF APPEAL...WE DID NOT

KNOW WHERE THIS SPECIFICATION CATR+, FROMtALSO I WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY OF THIS

SPECIFICATION BY THE JURY...ONLY P4ALLICIOUS ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY THE JUDGE

AND PROSECUTOR... PLEASE VOID CONVICTION AND ILLEGAL SENTENCE***

`ROPOSITION OF ,LAWNO.^

A TRIAL SENTENCING JUDGE HAS NO AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION TO PUNISHBEYON(3 THE TRIAL JURY"S VERDICT FORP4... RC.2945.75(A)(2) ***THE APPELLATE COURT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE ALL JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM`$.

The statue and all the stare decisis plainly state for any layman an

especially any official with a law degree,"NO DEGREE OF FELONY ON THE JURY

VERDICT FORM THEN THERE CAN BE NO FELONY CHARGED,MISDEMEANOR IN THE LEAST

DEGREE*** RC. 2945.75 (A)(2) a guilty verdict shall state the degree of

the offense found guilty of*** Otherwise a guilty verdict is guilty of

the least degree of the offense charged... Which would be a first time

misdemeanor ( D.U.I) driving under the influence alcohol or drugs...

4^

JURY VERDICT FORP4S WERE FATALLY FLWED AND ILLEGAL: When the jury does not

find alflements of the criminal charge,all is a legal nullity.When the

sentencing judge inflicts punishment that the jurys verdict does not allow

all is void ad initio,legal nullity.As the jury has not found all the facts

which the law makes essential to the punishment... "RC. 2945.75 (A)(2) AND

all the foregoing case law.... All certifys the judge has "NO AUTHORITY OR

SUBJECT P4ATTER JURISDICTION TO SENTENCE BEYOND THE JURYS VERDICT" Forbidden

by law dict,9th ed 2009 blacks law,ILLEGAL SENTENCE DOCTRINE,VOID JUDGPffNT

DOCTRINE,RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE AND CASE LAW DOCTRINE ALL INVOKED...

The defendants jury verdict form has nothing on them and his appeal was

a"SHAP4 APPEAL PROCESS" BY law the verdict should have been a D.U.I in the

least misdemeanor degree... RC 2945.75 (A)(2) SEE THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW:

-^LAKELY V WASHINGTON 542 U 5.296 S CT 2531 US. WASH, 2004 __

APPREDNDI V. NEW JERSEY 530.U.S. 466,120,5 CT,2348,147,Led,2d,435,(2000).,

STATE V. PELFREY 112,ohio,ST,3d,4212,860,ne,2d,735,ohio,2007

STATE OF 0HI0 V. LIGON 179,ohio st 3d 544 902,ne,2d,1011,ohio 6085,544,ohio

STATE OF OHIO V. SESSLER.119.ohio st 3d 422 2007 ohio 256

,STATE OF OHIO V. HUCKLEBERRY APP NO. CA,07-3142 2008-ohio-1007

STE OF OHIO V. SUTTON NE @D, 2008 WL, 2833644,ohio app 8thdTAt- 9nnq

STATE V. KALISH 120 ohio ST.3d.23.2008-ohio-4912,869,ne 2d,124

As such the trial court judge had no authority or subject matter

jurisdiction to render any kind of sentence beyond the jurys misdemeanor

jury verdict form which was clearly a misde4ieanor D.U.I. according to the

jurys verdict...

SEE The SHAP4 APPEAL PROCESS ; STATE OF OHIO V. ROBERT HARSH CA,2007-03-083

The 12th dist said QUOTE " THE JURY VERDICT FORP4 CITES THE WORD OPERATE"...

AND THIS Pg;ANS A FIRST TIPE"FELONY FOUR D.U.I ..... WOW..P4ANIFEST MORON LAW.

As such this hoporable eburt should issue immediate release of defendant

i had no adeqaute remedy of law my appeal was a SHAP4 APPEAL PROCESS"...

O1/2t/2009 14 36 FAX 5138973498 8ut1or-C0-PrQSSculor

10-

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASBUTLER COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff

2.

3.

4.

5

6.

va.

ROBERT HARgH

Oefendant

CASE NO: CR0¢ 03 0500

(Judge Pfryala S. Oney)

VER^_ T - CpUpT--Qw

a 002/002

We• the jury, being flrat duly iirlpaneted and awom, findRobert T. Har9h, ma Detendant,

o/ ePer+ttfng a motpr vah(aleunder thg inBuenaa on or about the 19 th day o/ February, 2008

, (') inaeit 'Gui7ty or 'Not guitty'• accptqylg to yourflndinga.

r_^ _, LfL

12.

Dated thte_day of January, 2007.

ENTER

6-1

_I^^Sb^IYb^"l^uor JvrN Ud-6tJt(^

^ ^---^ ^ i •,

PROPOSITION OF LAW N0. ^••

A SENTENCING JUDGE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO SENTENCE OUTSIDE THE STATUEOR CONTRARY TO LAW, OUTSIDE THE MAYIP4UP7 IS ILLEGAL,UNAUTHORIZED BY LAW

AND NO JURISDICTION... PURSUANT TO: RC, 2929.13 (G)(I) and RC. 2929.16(A)(3

RC.4511.19 (G)(I)(d)(i) an •4511.19 (G)(I)(c)(ii) RC.4511.19 (A)(I)APPELLATE COURT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE J ISDICTIEiNAZ_=Ni5_ _ -

M

It iswell settled law inthe state of OHIO that a first time felony

four (D.U.I.) i,e., DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS (O.V.I)

PURSUANT TO LAW AND STARE DECISIS NO PRISON TERP4 IS AUTHORIZED***

RC.2929.13 (G)(I) :If the offender is being sentenced for a fourth degree

felony and he has not been convicted of section RC,2941.1413 (prior multi

felony O.V.I. offender specification) then the court shal impose upon the

offender a mandatory term of local incarceration of 60 days ***as specified

in division (G)(I)(d) of section 4511.19 of the revised code***The term

shall be in jail,halfway house or rehab facility.... The sentence may be from

the 60 day mandatory,;jail,rehab or halfway upto one year and no prison term

is authorized for a first time felony four (D.U.I) OFFENDER...

SEE.... KATZ, GIANNELLI AND BALDWINS k 117.3

SEE... PAINTER AND LOOKER OHIO DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE PENALTIES N 12;1'3

SEE ALL CONTROLLIN STARE DECISIS 1996-2010

pSTATE V. BROOKE 109 ohio ST,3d,1404,845,NE,@D,522,545,2006,ohio,1703

STATE V. WILTON 113,ohio,app 3d, 575,729,NE,2d 420,ohio app 6dist 1999

OHIO SUPRE21E COURT DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL V. LANDIS 124,ohio,ST,3d,508124,ne,2d,361,2010..927 *** (2 felony four d.u.i's he got 60 days)_

STATE V. MALONEY NE,2d, 1999, WL 760923 ohio app 12th dist..1999

STATE V. HUBBS 2010, WL 3861081 2010 ohio 4849,app 7th dist 2010.09-0024

STATE V. PARKER 2010,WL 1017956 ohio anp 7th dist 2010

STATE V. ADKINS 2010 WL 334972.ohio app 5th dist 201Q

STATE V. P9.IKOLAJCZYK 2010, WL,125998 ohio app 8th dist 2010

STATE V. KALISH .120 ohio ST 3d 23,2008 ohio,4912,869,ne 2d,124

SfATE V. HURST NE 2d 2001, WL, 188761 ohio app 6th dist Feb, o9.200

STATE V. LAPZ<S 139,ohio,app 3d,617,744,ne,2d,1260,ohio,app 8th dist 2000

STATE V. PANELLA 2010,WL,2802248,ohio app 2nd dist.2010 ohio 3354 citingS HE RECEIVED 60 days and this was a felonv three D.U.Ij ^

STATE V. REED 2010,WL,334909 ohio app 2nd dist 2010 y

QASG S(2b Sp&lC.E

^YI^A/DY^^flCL^ 7 ?resctv,

Ht\"^ _l NS^1NC-^L^ ^kffUp°^- V ^%. l \ed-)eci- WR c4A 0.,12 9-06 Io -US ®bMi^) ^

^ ^^

Therefore there is a plethoric amount of stare decisi and statues

certifying ''NO PRISON TERP4 IS AUTHORIZED FOR A FIRST TIPE FELONY FOUR D.U.I

OFFENDER... and sentencing outside the maximum or the minimum is illegal

unauthorized by law is illegal. point blank no interpretation is needed***

P1R. HARSH"S SEVEN YEAR P7ANDATORY PRISON TERP4 CAN NOT STAND AND IS CLEARLY

A P4ALICIOUS ABUSE OF DISCRETION, UNAUTHORIZED BY LAW.... ONLY VERY

VINDICTIVE FOR REFUSING JUDGE ONEY"S THREE MONTH PLEA DEAL AGREEFM....

THIS SENTENCE SHOWS MANIFEST CORRUPTION AND THE UNCARING ATTITUDE FOR LAW AN

ORDER IN BUTLER COUNTY ,OHIO... SOPIETHING HAS TO BE DONE.... BUTLER COUNTY

OHIO JUDICIAL SERVICES ARE OUT OF CONTROL THERE IS NO GUIDEANCE ONLY

HIGH AMOUNTS OF CORRUPTION... IT"S IN ALL THE NEWS PAPER'"S AND ON THE NEWS..

I ROBERT HARSH HAVE NEVER HAD A FELONY IN PlY LIFE... I WAS A SMALL

BUSINESS OWNER IN WARREN COUNTY,OHIO, A CHRISTIIAN MAN WITH A FAPIILY AND A

VETERAN OF THE UNITED STATE ARP4Y WITH HIGH RANKING HONORABLE DISCHARGE****

Furthermore i was very innocent and only found guilty because the state

only witness cop B.A. BOST and the prosecutor DAVID L. KASH told the jury

i had a small baggie of marijuana and they were keeping it at the crime lab

did not want to bring it to trial... I was convicted on an invisable baggie

of marijuana that did not exsist ^^!?,^.!:k^ . .. This is proposterous,a

manifest injustice a clear denial of civil rights and a fair trial....

WHerefore the defendant in this case sub judice was never facing any

kind of priosn term whether it be from a misdemeanor D.U.I AS THE JURY FOUND

or whether it be from a first time felony four D.U.I as the sentencing judge

malicely tried to escalate the misdemeanor D.U.I to. so regardless and

pursuant to all statues and stare decisis the defendant was never authorized

by law to be in prison for any amount of time....

RC.2929.16 (A)(3) IF THE OFFENDER IS BEING SENTENCED FOR A FIRST TIPE FELONY

FOUR D.U.I OFFENSE UNDER RC.2929.13 (G)(I) of section A term of upto ONE

YEAR IN JAIL , LESS THE P4ANDATORY TERP4 OF 60 days imprisonmet imposed

pursuant to thaT DIVISION halfway house, rehab, or reseidential facility...

RC. 4511.19 (G)(I)(d)(i) : *** If the offender has not been found guilty

of the RC. 2941.1413 multi prior felony D.U.I offender specification then

the court shall impose either a mandatory term of 60 days local incarceration

in accordance with RC. 2929.13 (G)(I) OR if this is not his first time

felony D.U.I then a mandatory prison term of 60 days in accordance with

RC. 2929.13 (G)(2) of that section... so in laymans terms 60 days mandatory

jail term is authorized for all first time felony four D.U.I offendersupto one year in jail, rehab or residential facility... that is all thelaw and all the statues allow and it is affirmed in all the stare decisis...

RC. 4511.19.(G)(I)(c)(ii) :(AS ON THE DEFENDANTS SENTENCE JUDG=) ***e court sna-ii impose ttie 60 day mandatory jail term under this section

unless subject to (G)(3)***The court may impose a jail term in addition tothe 60 day mandatory jail term*** the additional jail term shallnot exceed one year.

RC.4511.19 (A)JI) NO PERSON SHALL OPERATE ANY P40TOR VEHICLE**** ( THIS WASTHE ONLY CHARGE ON Pit. HARSH"S INDICTPIENT A ffiSDEP9EANOR CODE, THAT IS IT..;)

For all the aforementioned reason's and all the statues and all the

case laws and controlling stare decisis everyting certifys that 'MR. HARSH"S

P7ANDATORY SEVEN YEAR PRISON SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL,UNAUTHORIZED,FORBIDDEN BY

LAW, IGNORANT, CONTRARY TO LAW,MALICE, P4ALICIOUS,STUPID AND HIGHLY

VINDICTIVE, THE SENTENCE CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND,, ....THE DEFENDANT IS

HIGHLY UNLAWFULLY IP4PRISONED...BLACKS LAW dict,ed,2009 815 A SENTENCE IS

ILLEGAL AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW.... P7ANIFEST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY

THIS COURT SHOULD ORDER THE I129EDIATE RELEASE OF THE DEFENDANT,WITH

ERPUNGMENT OF RECORD_ . . ^^c CL

[16^CC^ ^O6`sV4, k4c f r CtvSiti ^ ^ueX+^C ^`1EU+S ^ 14V1£dWt'k ^

^,^1 &%r^ wLC^- w^^ c^6u^c^ ^ q„P {Cccc-Luc

`7 -seuEo Ntt^ r- W1As^^ld^ao,( .,(, ^^r.^vvA S^n^wcE-urEl^t vti^s^YiLkc^1L^ E^1 ^- ^b udv ctkl,t^.b fuf

Suc?f vA t A,u^- (^e( iA^^sZ^ `k^1lCv-1 ^."100 btr^q1C*kW--1 aa(_ _wJ

`u4` l}- ^b^ ^® ql^fLt ^ r

l^^r^`^ w^ ^ ttz^SW4^Y°^ ^c.^l^ u-i `Qw^\^.f ^^^n^CAca

`-Ms v-l1^b cf Ti'.jsp,\je^q &cttTt- ^^ ^^^^^^ ^q ^A"t^^^ ^c mc , A^ T WAL

V-4-AVv L/` ► 1A-e 3 `c (

\Ji c ^A.k^ ^^ ^^^ 4Lw^s w^^ ^^ss^^^^«

^^

PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1111

THE TRIAL COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION DURING TRIAL BECAUSE

THE PROSECUTOR ILLEGALLY ALTERED THE INDICTMENT AND THE FORGED

DOCKET STATEMENTS TO FALSELY APPEAR AS CERTIFIED JUDGMENT ENTRYS

OF PRIOR D.U.I"S,BY ADDING THE DEFENDANT"S WHOLE NAME AND DATE OF

BIRTH, SOCIAL SECUTIRY NUMBERS AS WELL AS ORDERED HIS CLERK AMY

WITHROW TO FORGE JUDGES SIGNATURES ALL EGREGIOUS,ILLEGAL ACTS...

WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE 52 (B) PLAIN ERROR

ON JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMSCRIM R, 7(D), RC. @2921.12,RC.2941.02-06

RC.2941.11 pleading prior conviction,RC.@2941.12 pleading statue

OHIO CRIM,LAW 8 40;2 (SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS BEEN REQUESTED

SECTION 10 ART I OHIO CONST.----------------------------

The court of appeals failed to recognize all the facts of plain

error that deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.THE APPELLATE

COURT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE ALL THE CRIMINAL FRAUDULANT ACTS THAT

WERE COMMITTED BY THE PROSECUTOR AND HIS SECRETARY ALL IN THE

RECORD.

First and foremost the defendant has a right to indictment with

all the factual elements to be proved must be charged to grand

jury and given to defendant by way of indictment*** OHIO CRIM LAW

S 40;2 Jurisdiction fails in any case in which a required indictm

ent is not obtained. There can be no trial,no conviction,or

punishment for a crime without formal and sufficient accusations

ALL ELEMENTS MUST BE CHARGED BY GRAND JURY: FAILURE TO LIST ALL

ELEMENTS RELINQUISHES THE TRIAL COURT OF JURISDICTION***

SEE... STATE V. DILLEY 47 ohio,st,3d,20,546,ne,2d,937,(1989)

CITING RC. 2941.1413 MUST BE PROVED TO GRAND JURY WITH ALL

ELEMENTS OR ELSE ALL IS NULL AND VOID .......

SEE... CRIM R, 7 (B)&(D) TO PROVE PRIOR CONVICTIONS THE ACCUSED

AT A CERTAIN DATE AND TIME IN A CERTAIN COURT,CONVICTED OF AN

OFFENSE WITH NUMERICAL DESIGNATION TO STATUE VIOLATED....

NO PRIORS WERE LISTED ON HARSH"S INDICTMENT...ALL IS NULL AND

VOID..ONLY RC. 4511.19 (A)I MISDEMEANOR D.U.I.

SEE... STATE V. ALLEN, OHIOpl 09-30-1999,102,mish 2d,723,ne 2d,674PRIOR CONVICTION ARE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND MUST BE LISTED ....

di

HABEAS CORPUS WIL LIE TO CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION AND THE

AUTHORITY OF THE TRIAL COURTS IMPOSITION OF CONVICTION AND

SENTENCE...EX PARTE MILTON 178,N.E 2d,846,847,ohio law abs 168

OHIO,COM,PL.,1961; STATE EX REL AITKEN V. McINTOSH 9 OHIOsupp

114,1942,WL,6501,24,0.0.126 OHIO probNO.14165...

There is no question here the trial court was without

jurisdiction for numerous reasons*** The appellate court and

the ohio attorney general would not even recite mu jurisdictional

claims on paper because they all know Iam unlawfully imprisoned

on a manifestly "VOID JUDGMENT ENTRY" MANIFEST EVEN TO A MORON...

LET ALONE SOMEONE WITH A DEGREE IN LAW...

RC. 2921.12 tampering with evidence... (A) NO person knowing that

an official proceeding or investigation is in progress,or is

about to be,shall do any of the following;(I)alter,destroy*** any

document with purpose to impair its value***(2)MAKE PRESENT OR

USE ANY RECORD OR DOCUMENT KNOWING IT TO BE FALSE*** WITH PURPOSE

TO MISLEAD OFFICIAL IN COURT PROCEEDING,TO CORRUPT THE OUTCOME

IN ANY WAY...

NEVERTHELESS THE prosecutor DAVID.L KASH was caught red

handed turning in pieces of traffic docket paper into the court

as certified prior d.u.i judgment entrys of the defendant... If

it was not bad enough he had his secretarytry an alter the

indictment to ad specifications not shown to the grand jury now

he tell's hsi secretary or amy withrow to alter these already

benn certified documents...

SEE... STATE OF OHIO V. BROOKE 109,ohio St,3d 1404,845,ne 2d

522,545,2006,ohio,1703 'Et"^ ^o DP^^ "M(M`C^(

9x

The defense was provided a discovery which had the pieces of

traffic dockets certified by other courts... the defense knew

these were invalid and not of the defendant and not of acertified

judgment entry for they lacked all the viable information... So

WE HAD our void certified set that we were going to and did rebut

in jury trial,, Then the prosecutor hands his to the jury and

court and we ask to see the pieces of paper he has... LOW AND

BEHOLD.The prosecutors papers no have my full name listed and

have my social security number and date of birth along with the

judges signatures all added to them.... WE SAID WAIT A MINUTE

THOSE HAVE BEEN ALTERED*** The prosecutor said "SO WHAT IT IS

A GRIEVABLE OFFENSE,I DID NOT ALTER THE DOCKET SHEETS OF PAPER

I CALLED AMY WITHROW AND HAD HER DO IT I TOLD HER THEY DID NOT

HAVE ALL THE VIABLE INFORMATION ON THEM TO PROVE A CERTIFIED

JUDGMENT ENTRY OF MR. HARSH AND SHE ADDED HIS NAME AND DATE OF

BIRTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER TO THEM.... MORE ILLEGAL ACTIONS.

SO NOW YOU HAVE:

1. SENTENCED TO UNINDICTED CRIMINAL SPECIFICATIONS NOT FOUND BY

ANY GRAND JURY AND NOT EVEN FOUND GUILTY OF BY TRIAL JURY...

2. SENTENCED BEYOND THE TRIAL JURYS MISDEMEANOR JURY VERDICT...

3. SENTENCED OUTSIDE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY STATUE*** FOR A

misdemeanor D.U.I (3days upto 6 months county jail or rehab )

(FIRST TIME FELONY D.U.I offender 60 day mandatory rehab or

county jail upto one year)pursuant to RC. 2929.13(G)(I) and all

applicable statuesRC. 2929.16 (A)(3), RC. 4511.19 (G)(I)(d)(i)

RC.4511.19 (G)(I)(c)(ii) AND RC. 4511.99(A)(4) LENITY DOCTRINE..

a3

4. SENTENCED TO UNINDICTED FIRST TIME FELONY FOUR D.U.I. WITH

ANY ELEMENTS OF PRIORS TO BE PROVED NO CULPABLE MENTAL STATE

NO FELONY FOUR NUMERICAL DESIGNATION TO STATUE ONLE A MISDEMEANOR

D.U.I. ON HARSH INDICTMENT RC. 4511.19 (A)(I) THAT IS ALL AND

ACCORDINGLY THE JURY TRIAL VERDICT IS A MISDEMEANOR*** RES IPSA

LOQUITUR DOCTRINE***

5. NEVERTHELESS MR. HARSH WAS NEVER FACING A PRISON TERM AND HE

HAD REFUSED A THREE MONTH PLEA DEAL AGREEMENT TO A CCC PROGRAM

HE TOLD JUDGE ONEY HE WAS INNOCENT AND GOING TO TRIAL HE WAS

GOING TO PROVE THE COP WAS A LIAR AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE...

MR. HARSH"S ( 7,) SEVEN YEAR "MANDATORY" PRISON SENTENCE IS BY

FAR "VOID JUDGMENT ENTRY" ALONG WITH THE "VOID CONVICTION" AND

NOTHING OTHERWISE CAN BE SAID THIS IS A TERRIBLE MANIFEST CAS^

MANIFEST INJUSTICE AND CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE***

I2016 &(F,nos t5 L^ ^ Sc^^f c^+e ^r V^ ^5

C)

94,^, ^ , ^-^Ac 4f S,Vn. ar

4b^O ^^s @ar^os

h ^^c

e^^'cu^s^wc^ -ttc r

C-tIG^A-4L- k^^ 4Ut':6 l) 4U4`_^--^1

^1/t"C-L"o. VL+:_ U-sLLk ^^ '{.^IJo....

'_ tgs L.

ACL, -l27dZ-

.;^^^s^..^

El: ^dlB'^ YL4, 3iwJ Cb.i` t'f^.^.1,`t^t ^_J^^^A.4 lE#^^h^'^V "^C

U_, ^4- 3°1 L`fa)(^L3 F^t^6 3-l, b JL2 D,,,Q <t

lo^ q 5^ c^^di^ `^ _..^AVi^L^e5 ^ ^ Fiuc 4 ^wec ^a^ ^ v ^ ^ ^-tw ^ rc ^ ^ ^

Sta^- iW -k-Vt^ k-OIW GAzel^ Gv\^

NttLE^ LVIAWt- Wr2t+- inc

^ ^P ¢l.^(.

°^,^4^^^C ^c^l c e

^c,.^V•nt-n

^ ^^ U-^;- ^A^r^ ^+L I

4o,c ^.,,+qwiPUkf 4'_cC^e^^ ^uftU? "JO#t-fro/!L`

FY^t^ C^^'L9Zl(A4^ fk' Z^ 3 'f lC C

{^^ ^^^<E CtXz ^W.L\ f3^+c.)E.s Aful^, 42uU^ wt^-ln

Vlw ,-() (Ovtcw,:alCZ-1 L

l - ^licUC- ` Lt 6,C7k j,,Vt(

C.,Fy-\sav,-v l"/\ .^ U^ Gjktc.0 I'-\ NWkc-^ G^t,,^ Z;Aj °2C€ y [a2t ^U4-Sr Vftk P^ ^t C^ J^^ ^^vO ve.DC QNy , ^^tt ^

C.`' ^^N2^r^^^dq 54- 2, &1^5

til`Rl twA&JOta.

CONCLUSION

It is well settled law a habeas corpus cannot take the place

of an appeal... As such the defendant in this case did not have

a dirsct appeal with any authority in law his appeal was a"SHAM"

as is clear from the record...

Although it is well settled law that a "VOID JUDGMENT OR

CONVICTION" can never be res a judicata and may be reviewed at

any time or place. A VOID JUDGMENT is a court that acted without

the jurisdiction or the authority to act... SEE... STATE V. PAYNE

114,Ohio St.3d,502,2007ohio-4642,873,ne,2d,306 MR. harsh case is

VOID JUDGEMTN AND CONVICTION ALL THEY WAY AROUND.

Sentences that are void imposed without the authority of law

VOID AB INITIO" due to the fact the judge imposed outside the

sentencing range, out side the statutory range, contrary to

statue,[which]is outside the courts jurisdiction and of,course

beyond thejurys verdict is definately out sid the courts jurisdi

ction to impose punishment.

Further being sentenced to unindicted offenses never shown

to a GRAND JURY or for that matter never even found guilty of

in jury trial*** only a malicious sentencing by a vindictive

judge as is clear Mr. HARSH was never indicted on any kind of

specification with any elements listed or numerical designation

to any kind of specification only BUTLER COUNTY "SHAM" this court

has to stpo the corrupt illegal actions of butler county or

atleast send them a warning... This cas subjudice is pure, evil

and demonic in nature how in the world is a person going to turn

down a three month plea deal and get threatend not to go to jury

2^1

trial in her butler county court room or else she is going to

allow the prosecutor and cop witness to brake the law and the

poor defendant is going to get a malicious, vindictive, evil

and manifestly contrary to law' (7) SEVEN YEAR MANDATORY PRISON

SENTENCE... THIS COURT MUST GUIDE THESE OUT OF CONTROL CORPORAT

IONS... THE LAW IS FOR EVERYBODY AND IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NO

EXCUSE...

SENTENCE"S AND CONVICTIONS MAY BE CHALLENGED AT ANYTIME AND

ANYPLACE THAT ARE IMPOSED WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY LACK THE

COURTS JURISDICTION AND "HABEAS CORPUS" is the only remedy when

all other courts evade the jurisdictional claims for relief...

SEE... STATE V. WILSON 1995,73,ohio St,3d,40,44,653,ne,2d,196

SEE... GASKINS..V. SHIPLEY 1995,74,ohio,St,3d,149,151,656,NE.@D,

In a successful challenge to a courts void sentence and convic

tion'a court lacks authority to do anything but announce its

lack of jurisdiction and dismiss.' PRATTS V. HURLEY 102,ohio

St,3d,81,2004,ohio,1980,806,ne,2d,992 @21

Wherefore the sentence and conviction are not authroized by law

and MR. HARSH was legally never facing any prison term whatsoever

and was told this at his arraignment before honorable JUDGE SPAET

in butler county,ohio then the case was transferred to dishonor

able judge ONEY and she gives the defendant an aultimatum take

three month plea deal agreement in ccc rehab or else...

As the court or even any moron could plainly see the 7 seven

year mandatory prison term is highly illegal and contrary to law.

The court was without the authority to impose and correction of

this highly invalid conviction and sentence is long overdue...

Therefore the trial courts judgment entry is highly void

on it's face and can not be corrected in any way..The seven

years was not authorized by statue, the prison term was not autho

rized by statue and the seven year mandatory term was definatel!^

not authorized by statue.

The lenity doctrine the illegal sentence doctrine, the void

judgment doctrine and res ipsa loquyitur doctrine are all invoked

and have been invoked in appeal courts as well...

The court of appeals erred in dismissingthe writ of habeas

corpus, because the trial court erred and maliciously abused it's

discretion and authority in violation of ARTICLE 1,92,8,10,16

of the ohio constitution ART,i,section,9 cl.2 and THE 5thand 14th

U.S.C.A rights to due process and equal protection of law...

CLEARLY,this court should issue the writ or the immediate

release of the defendant he is going on his mandatory sixth year

in prison on a misdemeanor jury verdict form that he is not

guilty of, and only found guilty by crimes committed by the

corrupt prosecutor and his only witness...

^ ^' (D,f^

^

PB&YEE.FO&.&ELIEF

5 -^^ r.ter-) (IDpy -Pt"s^f

1. That the court order a special prosecutor for all the crimes

COMMITTED BY THE PROSECUTOR AND HIS SECRETARY, ALLEGED HEREIN.

2. That the court order the immediate release on O.R. BOND or

any kind of appeal bond or just issue of writ of habeas corpus.

3. That this appeal be granted and the writ of habeas corpus

be granted and any other relief the court deems appropriate in

law and order...

E-C`^ ^^ ^ l^-,-}il^^4 t Respectfully submitted,

^}^V W R^^ w l.L

^^^`^^^^^^^^^^a ROBERT HARSH EX REL, 005473051^0J(JY^1^jdy

`^

(^^ Po BOX 120 ^t^.,o^ O^(^1N1^^^ iI -L 2S ^^50 ^j^

^r We, ► cn,^4-, „ ^^---- - - - .^a^ N^1L^^LEI.Z E'^, w. ^e. . C^wt^Llc^ ^ ►^c.rEf) NQ

IwmE2icw( tJE5^56uvr(^csr^ ,{,,O ^[Ew^EN+S ^ V^1c'^ Gul^A^j^^ Yv^EU^i^4(

Si^tF^ ^ ^1c ^Gt^atZ Ccwuic.,•t-iu" ^S L L S^E^

Nuv,4 AS^- po&sr--^cn-N cf' ftcz.ywuvvA , -QEWVtN'S vtwZ IVo 2EwwvA("^-

QEV^^; tv^ fC^R^ c,F Ctyt^l QEwwus^t ^^5^ 5ue^s6Jic^ icm ^..,°ttin ^r.t'En^^ ► v^ ^v^,urwt;zr^+^v^ ^"piti)...

N ^0 5P6LL-F^ ^ --?R C-,^ U-J-,-50 ^ 62A,uu Lkk YnEN k- 3J-k CCON4RAQ-^-(

,^Itf^^ SEN-EE^Lt ObC.,k(Lt^Uc-- ^ SCE.11^. vt^v^ ^o VUL^nw2u^c3

C^JE1+S^ S,^^EN^^^C^w^ ^^c-_-^(ttv^(A ^u2^^ `5 1(t/(,tSb^+ME^warl VEfZ^^(^',.,

E^u^e^( c>( ^^(Z^ ► ck ^ .ti-e< ^Ccm•^Qu^{ ^ lww . ^^^y ^sc^^21'Y^PO^ ^jE2^Otf3c R5 -kc^ ^^nis f(lAu^vl^a.^v^ ^,^.1^l2^^ ^^y1^2^ iS ^C1E

^(Cp^ 4 nu2`j CAtV fJCr -Ct4UD qo,., (wil-Itt if r.]Ot 0N vaRcl^ G'a`^

^ ^of^Mh'^H (M V (7(1.^o,^ . ^ ,e • (Yk6 i ^N^ 1:{'vflv-:- ^1

T^ojU+e^lQy ^ LWc.^ •

No S+AtvEl tir.D l)uruFw^cwl A t-s^^^at+crr NoNb CutP^Ie V►nAM 5f A4c--I NO A6t^rllku^r^ ^C^^n^r^rt^,

r l tJ^^, tn ^' ^ R^^, ne+ ^ ,SSkcc iura^ I^u^!

p.2C^ L151^, l'l. ^-Fwo ft1o,ian vtk«<ic: , V^.C^W ^vibe'^vCL^ 'S ^,(^(^O^C^- iS Y`(^tSOCvYt^iArvo^ ^w (^S+ ^=^11L=^•O^ K(_- 9^ lHCi^E^U^U PRior l1^kM^ ^^^ p 0.t^5

lo, TAK^ u()lu1}^ ^o.^iCc d, 6iR2c QE6Sts.., sc.rJa1^ ►,1^

^a LE`Rc^- -Ag V\wSc- d- 1^^12^^ttC^3 ^ SEN^4^ WY,nioaLs,

^wn ^ZtSUv^ ^ _ ^^ ^tl^ -t1 tt) YVl Qt`^l^ Z^o^l -

in3 -koc>cv\, {^s 6JEtl A5 Yhq Niu llrl°S

`kb M2 &2 .^^cUL t^tLa^zu^^Z`S ^^-^ wtr^ ^, s s^ ^ ►^wo. ^'l

KN- j tlq l k l4 t^ sn^Encw^recsE^ 0`2 d l o- ---

tt l - t> l- 00`7Z^ C,^, kL tc.----------------

cxWu , u&I wA^j CA acD t-©`-t r- oq!gC^- o4cz) V. 1-^Affilzq 1y2- ON(^)_^_^^i la^

t^• I o^^ ^r P^^c`^,l ^o O^ S^m^ (b^ct (^y^^., ^,^Q3

t°t a0t1-- tc^-•2•^'^ 1h^" 4^^s^ ^^

^ VIINO. `G A SE/d{QiCe- pCX^ivUC

(60 -^w.rrneKst- ouA2ttyE` ^ ^^ ^C a°,^tt t^t^ Sr^ec^tllt+^uv°

^t=^tf^x1 D y^ \(,lL Q 7U ,_^ti1ow A^ ^^2"^k 6w5

IN THE CC iT OF COMMON PLEASBUTLER COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO

Plainti(f.S

vs.

ROBERTT.HARSH:!

Defendant

I'1

CASE NO. CR2006-03-0500

INDICTMENT

STATE OF OHIO, PAGE ONE OF TWOCOUNTY OF BUTLER, SS:

In the Year 2006

THE 3URORS OF THE GRAND JURY OF THE STATE OFOH/O, within and for the body oftheCounty aforeraid, on their oaths, in the name and by the authority ofthe State ofOhio, do f:nd and presentthat:I

COUNTONEOPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE

On or about February 11, 2006, at Butler County, Ohio, Robert T. Harsh did operate any vefiicle,streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state while under the influence of alcohol, a dmg of abuse, or acombination of them, when the offender, within six years of the offense, has been previously convicted ofor pleaded guilty to three or four violations of division (A) or (B) of O.R.C. sectioh 4511,19 or otherequivalent offenses or who within twenty years of the offense, previously has been convicted of orpleaded guilty to flve or more violations of that nature, which constitutes the offense of OPERATING AMOTOR VEHICLE UNDER THE rNFLUENCE, a Fourth Degree Felony, in violation of R.C.§4511.19(A)())(a), and against the peace and dignity of the State Of Ohio.

[FI N. The Grand Jwors further find and specify that within twenty years of committing theoffense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five or more equivalentoffenses

COUNT TWOPOSSESSION OF MARIHUANA

On or about Febmary 11, 2006, at Butler County, Ohio, Robert T. Harsh did knowingly obtain, possess,or use a controlled substance when the drug involved in the violation is marihuana or a compound,mixture, preparation, or substance containing marihuana other than hashish, which constitutes the offenseof POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA, a Minor Misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. §2925.11, and againstthe peace and dignity of the State Of Ohio.

COUNTTHREEDRIVING UNDER OVI SUSPENSION

On or about February 11, 2006, at Butler County, Ohio, Robert T. Harsh did operate any motor vehicleupon the public roads and highways or upon any public or private property used by the public forpurposes of vehicular travel or parking within this state while the drivers or commercial driver's licenseor permit or nonresident operating privilege has been suspended under section 4511.19,4511.191[4511.19.1], or 4511.196 [4511,19.6] ofthe Revised Code or under section 4510.07 of the Revised Codefor a conviction of a violation of a municipal OVI ordinance, which constitutes the offense of DRIVINGUNDER O VI SUSPENSION, a First Degree Misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. §4510.14(A), and againstthe peace and dignity of the State Of Ohio.

PAGE TWO OF TWOCR06-03-0500

COUNTFOUR

On or about February 11, 2006, at Butler County, Oh olRo ert T. Harsh did operste a motor vehicte,trackless trolley, or streetcar at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper, having due regard tothe traffic, sudace, and width of the street or highway and any other conditins, and did drive any motorvehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon any street or highway at a greater speed than will permitthe person to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distznce ahead, which constitutes the offense ofSPEED LIMITS, a Minor Misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. §4511.21, and against the peace and dignityof the State Of Ohio.

Filed

Defendant arraigned, and pleads:

Guilty to this indictment •/r, DAYID L. RASH (0024200)By ..oui^annirtcuNB(:UTINGATTORNEY

CINDY CARPENTERCLERK OF CO-TS A TRUE BILL

By a ^ 0/JDepuryFOREPERSON, GRAND dURY

q

_- A(^S sek4Eru(F,C.) _ +rwra^ V.

--l I -QSI ^. fLJ {tr_^S,_ cuQ v^ Q& 0_WLAfl2,9A o22 EVE,vT^^^(#^ ^rt^ ^^1 4puo RUl-^^ lcsc^Ern^^ati^^

'U 4-- 641AL-) Gjyv^d-4 , .Lcc- C^w ok)

Lc, , ,_^^--..CY^AlC^S . A. Jt-4254- 7Lvvi.C7 ^luvu ^c12 . T^

►uc PGLio^L ^(Yl^s ► cV1^^^^'s ^ / ^^ •^,^n^ ^/cS^- ^^i

,L--:S A(co(- bVtD Ue, hiCe/u , N-o, S. T15 N oL,RQ`l, ,

-..IAA2^^ oii t . -4670E^6 ._ ,r^ 1 us^rt,f-..t^w^ ^_ 15^PK^ 4.-Gr-E-

ltJb- U-omov±`5 Nc^ ^cto2 ^.. ^

Wo2wNcc4, , ,4AE-1,

, ,-}fAk---^ C^►0 s..IU a,

o?b,.0`0,^ ^1)^; A-blbw C^►2,^ ^ C^tiuu^ on, -Rt^^j,^^ -

"'CAURT OF COMMON PLEAS21 pl`; ^UzEER COUN7Y, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO

Pfnrf(L'rft: ,= "'p ' TsCASE NO. CR2006•03-0500

ONEY, J.

JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION ENTRY

On March 19, 2007 defendant'a sentencin9 hearing wes held pursuent to Ohio Revised CadeSeetion 2929.19. pefansa attarney, RobeRdefendant was edviaed Rettich III and the defendent wereconeidered the racortl, the of and afforded ell rights

chargea, the defendant'e Guilty Findin b Jury, present andon the record and herein, oral statements, any victim impact etetement end pre sentence report aswell as the principles and purposes of sentencing under Ohio Revised Code Section 2929,11,tandhas beienced the se d nuanesa and reNdivlsm tectora of Ohio fleviaed Code Section 2929.12 andwhether or not communityantl control is eppropriata pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 2929,1 S

finds that the defendant is not amenabie tp an availabie community control sanction. Furthar,tha Court hasor consid ered the defendant's present and future ability to

attorney'e fees.senction fin e e emount of anypay th

Tha Court finds that tha defandant haa been fuund guilty of:

OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE ee to Count One, a violetion of RevisedCode Section 4511,19(A)I7)(a) e fourth degree felony. Whh respect to this Count, the defendantis hereby sentenced to:

Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 4511,19(G)(1)(d)(i) a Mandatory Prison Term of 4years.SPECIFICATION as to Count

etldltional Prison Term of th One, and pursuant to Ohio Revised Codr eae (3) years ia imposed as mantletor Section 2947.1413, anto Revised Code Section 46 1 1 .19(GII77fcl(ii). y and consecutive term----------- ---`_.^'.---^-. Rt3an c..,_.., , ^ pursuant°RIVING UNDER OVI SUSPENSION rtlv^:

4510.14(A) a first degree misdemeenor.t WChureepam toethiaoCoiusentenced tc: nO tnL the defend n Is herebyJeil for a period of 6 months,

Pay a fine in the amount of 8300.00 to the 9utler County Clerk of Courts.This sentence will be served concurrantly with the santence imposed in Count One.

SPEED LIMITS as to Count Four, a vlolation of Revised Code Section 4511.21 amisdemeanor. With respect to this Count, the defendant Is hereby sentenced to: minorCourt costs

aees¢anaeArroaxer. avnaa Covrn^., pµoP.O. aexa]a, nnr.acfex,

oH^9et4-0ats

i

! ^^-- f P ^ t`Yth

I Se^lr^7vcc t

I FE(1OZ,q(. ^ouYL^ SAtQ

_ •vtUC. lj-Fftl.}E ^.It{f.Ll

Vw lw+Luv+'S -i (^ S{fr{^

i1 YkAJ ^'E5^- ^,uJUs^-u^

^c "4u^t^`' ^^^CF4uV1rj ^l^tS^h2^qhlp/'L

W 14CL02RJ}11fuCC Gv+4-"

Lww i?•ca^^tsr75re^>(a^1--I t; 5^ut^^c--0t^c-43 T(_) r? tit -S

^^3lt

R L q5kk1 0 vG)llQt)91^14Z171+iww^^t f it -io-s

^511 ,99 (A)(4) ^, r^ «;yf 3^ ^^^n^}^f^ `•i^ _ ^^d•i^a Cj •[ 6 ( ,A^lfL J) 4 i 4 '13

^+A\u^+^^wl:s

Jail time credit for 68 days served is granted as of this date.

As to Count(s) One and Three:

The Court hasnotified the defendant that post release control is optional in this case up to amaximum of three (

3) years, as well as the consequences for violating conditions of post releasecontroi imposetl by the Perole Baerd under Revised Code Section 2967.28. The defendant isordered to serve as part of this sentence any term of post release control imposed by the ParoleBoard, and any prison term for violation of that post release control. The defendant is thereforeORDERED conveyed to the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitatian and Correction.

Defendant is ORDERED to pay:

Costs cf prosecution, supervision and any supervision fees permitted pursuant to Revised CodeSection 2929.1 B(A)(4).

It is FURTHER ORDERED that said defendant is fined the sum of $1,500.00 as to Count One,$800.00 of which is a mandatory fine imposed pursuent to the provisions of Ohio Revised Code,2929.iB(B)(3) and 4511.19(G)(11(dliiii), and that the court makes the following equitable division ofthe mandatory fina in the amount of $800.00 to be distributed pursuant to revised Code4511.19(G)(5) $210.00 of the fine shall be paid to the enforcement and education fund establishedfor the Ohio State Highway Patrol, which the court determines is the lew enforcement agencyprimarily responsible for the arrest of the offender; $440.00 of ihe fine shall be paid to the OhioDepartment of Rehabi0lation and Corrections; and the balance of the fine shall be disbursed asotherwise provided by iaw.

Fines are to be paid to the Butler County Adult Probation Department.

It is FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Revised Code 4507.16, Ihat the defendant's pleasuredriving, operator's license or any other.driving permits or privileges shall be suspended for a term of10 years. Said term will begin March 19, 2007. Said term will end on March 18, 2017.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall notify the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles through form2724.

The Court further advised the defendant of all of his/her rights pursuant to Criminal Rule 32,including his/her right to appeal the judgment, his/her right to appointed counsel at no cost, his/herright to have court documents provided to him/her at no costs, and his / her right to have notice ofappeal filed on his behalf.

Directive to Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction: Please notify the Butler CountyCourt of Common Pleas af any major changes of incerceration status including but not limited torelease, transfer, execution or death of the dafendent.

APPROVED AS TO FORM: ENTER

ROBIN N PIPERrDl^.PROSECUT)NG ATTORNEY (

^^- ^

BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO __

ONEY, J.DLK/rimMarch 20, 2007

PeoseNnxCAlMxxBY, s Vn6e CeuxrV, pxroP.O. aox5le, H^eetrox, ON 95012a51a

^iizilZ009 14.36 FA9 5139613498

8yt1BI-CO-PIpgp,'ir

20021002

STqTE OF OHIO

Ptafntiff

vs.

ROBERT HARSH

Dafendant

^_ CO ►NT A

We, the jury, aal^ first duRabert T. Harsh, ty u^Aaneled and syvpm find tha Defendant,

under the inRuence on ora^LT^ of oP^raNng a motor vahlcla' (') Ineert '(3udfY' or N

^a 11 th day ot February, 2001':^ , n +°t 9uIKY^' accoFdlnQ ta Your Rndinpa.

,fp r --=^

Oated thta _ ^ ^{ ^^-y"--^--._ day ot January, 1007.

ENTER

L-C<^ 1 C (

IN THE COURTOF COMMON PLE,qg

BUTLER COUMy, OHIO

CASE NO: CR08 03 0500

(JUdga patricla S. Oney)

4 ^-,r v Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

L.; o1no

John R. Kasich, Governor

770 West Broad StreetGviumbus, Ohio 43222

-wommummmmawcvuvw.dre.ohio.gov Gary C. Mohr, Director

Wednesday, June 01, 2011 10:45 AM

CCI IBOSC - UPDATE & CORRECTIONI BY: CASTLIN

INMATE # A547305

NAME . HARSH, ROBERT T

COMMENTS: REC'D JE GRANTING JTC ON CASE CR200603050NEW EST

INST CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

ENTERED . 06/01/2011 M

ADMISSION DATE: 03/30/2007 FBI#: ^ BCI#: SSN#:

START ^^^^ iOFFENSE RWM^-- --- ^-- -

MINGUN 'DEFrTEt2MFULL MAX

AGGREGATE SENTENCE: 7.00 TERM

REMARKS: TRANSFER FROM INST# 1910 TO 0100

DATES: *2*

HEARING DATE2/3 HDACTUAL ND

213 ACTUAL

MAX SENT EXP DATEEXPIRATION DEF SENT213 EDSSTATED TERM EXP DATEGUN EXPIRATION DATEEXP OF MANDATORY TERM

4^omCbaAtl {-(et^ YYIe- ^ SEnIIE^)c^ rolc^t/ ,t-^ lOw" '• f ^.^nt^.^ ^yl ^ .V.Z nbE.S Raetuc-^ A-7 yER2. /1144UQ144c:KY PRISOh SE•LT•C^r^.=

.^,^^^ SC^^/`J^ t^aC^u^^^• yc^^t^ SEN^r^ Cs ^^^c^rv^l^i

LK !CfL FEL ORCIORN CNTY 'CASE #

Rvo!,AI!MAN^ryT OJUDGE

ONEY

PROSECUTOR

BUTL ICR2006030500

PIPER

R.ECElV^DJUN i U 2011

CCI RECORD OFFICE

AGG IYE,F SENT 1'E;ARSAGG STATED TERM SENT YRS

AGG 11•IIN/F'UI.I: SENT YEARSAGG Al SENT YEARSAGG MANDATORY YEAIYSAGG MAX SENT YEARS

AGG MUO: YEAR.401/14/2014 AGG RVO YEARS

AGG JAIL TIME CRE (days)01/14/2014

## - INACTIVIOFFENSE INFORMATION: Att, = 1; Con. = 2; Com =:

72

I

A A,,II,^,r._., I,,,i ., .(- ^ --^ _...' .,

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Bureau of Sentence ComputationDivision of Legal Services

P.O. Box 450Orient, Ohio 43146

John Kasich, Govemor

To: Inmate Harsh #W-305

From: Mr. C. HaRecord OffficglStf&,c+isor, BOSCO

Date: February 17, 2011

Re: Sentence

www.drc.ohio.gov Gary Mohr, Director

Your sentence has been calculated as ordered by the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County. FelonyOVI sentencing does not follow the sentencing guidelines for other felony offenses. If you do not agreethat your sentence is legal according to law this is not the correct venue for that argument. To challengethe legality of your sentence you must file an appeal through the appropriate Court of Appeals.

;-AERONAUTICS-WATRRCRAFP

Jhio Driving Under the Intluence § 1:27ility--Voluntariness-presaibed Medir

)hio Driving Under the Enfluence § 1Q3to State an Otfense-{Grounds f M.oro.Dismiss for Failure to State an OHenst•

thio Driving Under the fnfluence § 10:GTrial-Prohibited-Alcohol-Level Cases .1h6 Driving Under the Influence § 10:7,-ion to Stop, Detain, and Arrest-Eacis..Jurisdiction .

hio Driving Under the Influence § 11;1and Dmg Results at Trial.

hio Driving Under the Influence § 11:2iion of Alcohol Test Results to Phibid'rote.f.evel Offense.tio Driving Under the fnfluence § 11:3ges to Weight of Evidence .iio Driving Under the Influence § 11:4,rrest Results in RC 4511.19(A)(1) Prope„:

io Dtiving Under ts° r-°"-- - "-g Pracesc-Fiistory.io Driving Under the Influen ¢ 12J{ce

;nactmentand Current Status as oflan=,"05.io DtivittgUdne:Penalties. -eDriving Under the Influence $ 126p'::Penalties-Low TierIna^Y-crceratton o§ider.a Driving Under the Inftuence ¢ 12:T =Penalties-[nw Tier-license Suspen-.at Offender.

^ Driving Under the Influence § 12:8^,, 'enalties-Luw Tier-Incarceration of,

'ender.

' Driving Undetthe Influence § 129„'enalties-Low 75u-license Suspen;,..ind OHender

. Driving Under the Influence § 13:4,;;ehd'litimdbilization--penerally

Driving Under the Influence § 131,1t;tfV^lilcle-Oenerally -.DFii'itg Under the Influence § 15:;otidu^t-, .DrSvingUnder the Influence §^Opd of Law..Dtiving Under the Influonce § 15IFIIB Offense-°OPeratton' or "Ph

Wriging.;Underthe Influenee':§ 3:1.Under the Influence of qlcoJnSs of Abyseqlcottold Dge- anru 1

3rn'lPBIloder the fiDuence § 3:la.. rdlqence of Drugs of Abuse or Aloo3bhration With Drugs of Abuse<;FtSe G'eiterally.

hivirig Under the Influence § 3:15,.. 2,bmit m Testing ,

-^r4` Q ^ ^ ^I^cZAa^C^ '1!

4511.19

p.;AaiIIter

S;tj,DruOh4gos.Driving Under the Influence § 6:11, Painter,. Ohio Driving Under the Irdluence § 8:49,

Field Sobriety Tuting; Comp6ance With Proce-!'>11titCt, Ohio Driving Under the Influence § 6:12, dures.

e1L.9'Appeal lssues in Rf] Ceusa ases-PrivatePainter, Ohio Driving Under the Influence § 8:51,I"rif}Serty Distinntion:Due Process--presetvation of Tt Slesampe.Ohio Driving Under the Influence § 6:15 Painter Ohi Dii,,orvng Under the Influence § 8;52^.:ACS"Appeal

Issues in Refusal Cases-Arrest Re- Due ProcessRiht t Addii-gotonal Test.qUGements-Test Compliance With Department Pflnter, Ohio Driving Under the Influence § 8;53,;yo^."^fealth

Rules. Sample Mti Soon touPei6ter, Ohio Driving Under the Influence § 6:17 ppress-Fonn,,,W Appeal Issues in Refusal Cases-Retusal of Painter, Ohio Driving Under the Influence § g35,"-Request for Counsel Prior to Testing. SaimPIe Motion to Suppreas-qltemate-Blood;

Urine;(w Ohi Dii U Form,orvngnder the Intluence § 6:20,.W Appeal Issues in Retusal Cases-qdvia of Painter, Ohio Driving Under the Influence § 8:56yiiisequences of Refusal o Sbii Sampfe Motion to SuppressAltrumsson to Test.-ernate-Dmgs;Form

^it1ter, Ohio Driving Under the Influence § 7:13, .$';eath-Testing Requiremens-Instmment Painter, Ohio Driving Under the LtBuence 1 10:11 ,^teck of Breath-Testin t Motion in.limine-OVI Cases.

:,. Requirement. g^ pment-Frequencypainter, Ohio Driving Under the Inftuence § 10:14 ,^11!'9j1itE(: Ohio briving Under [he Influenm § 714 RefirsalSO Submit to Alcohol Testing;,„

^;;13ig'tjth-Testing Requ'uemen[s-Instmment Painter, Ohio Driving Under the Influence $ 10:16,^,j^FetlkofBreatN•Tes[1ngPquipment-Inshumenr ow °ntal Gau Nyrtagmus Test-Ohio Caseg`,(h. t(;pk Process-{lenerally "^. . . .

f^7;Ohio Driving Under [he IMuence §-7;18; Painter, Ohio Driving Under the Influence ¢10;17,:.`t!'dtlo-Testing Requirements^Intoailyzer Mar- . Iiorizo4taLGaze Nystagmus Test-(,ritique.iqf$iror. Painter bhio Dii U,rvngnder the Influence § 12:10,Ohio Driving Under tlie Influeoce- § 7!Z0 Stamtory pennlties-Low Tierli,-^ncarceraton foand Urine Test 9ltird Offs-Techniques.ender.

Ohib Driving Under the Infl painter, Ohio Driving Unduence § 721,er the Itdluence § 12:11,^tdfid'and Urine Testa-^Refrigemtion Require- Statutory Penalties---Low Tier-License Suspen-iif¢jlt sion of Third OHender .

41'dipter, Ohio Driving Under the Influence $ 7:23, Painter, Ohio Driving Under the Influenco ¢ 1212,t41tg Testing. Statutory penalties-Low Tier-Multiple Offend-

Painter Ohio Dii Udee er-Felonea, rvng nr the Infl ,uenc § 8:11,_

='Dtaf6ng the Motion-Grounds for the Motion. Pain[er, Ohto Dnving Under [he httluence ¢ 12:13,1'sintet, Ohio Driving Under the infltience § 8;17, Stamtory penalties-Low Tier--Felony Penal-e`;§piden of Proof-OVI Cases-NoncompliancC ttu-Ftrst Felony.'With Alcohol Test Regulations. Pain[er, Ohio Driving Under the Influence § 12:14,t^tdC Ohio Dri•'tng Under the Influeh § 81g ftatutory Penalties-Low Tier-Felony Penl

ce:, .a-UtGen of Proof-OVI Cases--Recommended e^ne°nd and Subsequent Felony Offenders.(9'ZPfde. Painter, Ohio 4riving Under the Influe,nce §li:`i6,

Ohio Drivin Undh I uCBhtory PenaltlesLow Tie=Pidoger tenfluence ¢ 8:21,-rnes an Btih-Eellate Review-AWed Offengag of Sjmil,ar9rt', Paintey Ohio.I)rivingUnderthe Influence § 72i17,

Ohio Driving Under ihe. Influence § 8:29, F^1Ory`Penalties-High Tier-Incarceratiqg oEable Cause for Arrest nat Ojfendat., .

"r" painter, tlOhio Driving Under the Influende ¢ 12:18;r;Ohio DrivingUnder the lntluence § 841 S ^RSA•;,tamtory Penalties-FBgh Tier-Li V^}Vho`6o1 and Drug Testingqdmissrbititt A! ^cense Suapen-y. o- sionop]tirst Orend '.erp,6Test Resuts. Tb 3t+.fL';^l1^$}i Otitn 4dvittg- ilnder the Inffpen Painter, Ohio D gnder the Influenqe §1219^cei $ 8:4^ Statt PftiHe,uorynees-glt i5Inf"Y^i7(to1 and Diug Tesdng=A(chl or--catceratiqn ooo Te3ting as Second bffendet.

Ohio Drivin Under the i Painter, Ohio Driving Uvder the Influence § 12:21,8 n(tuence ¢ 8:43 Statt Pli,uoryenates-i-Iigh Tier-Inc2rcemtipn ofbol andDrup. Testing-.ComplianceWit.h ',fyird:.0@'ettAer:: '. .. . ^,.irig Regitlationb . . . . .. ^ ^. . ^ . . . . ^ . . . . .. ^ .

7n")$r, Ohio DrivinUnder the IM ehce gq4 Painter, Ohio Driving Under the Influence $ 12:23: :,-A.Ihbhola Dru q $ Statutpry.Peneltiey-High Ter-Felony Pena1-nd g esting-Drug Analpsis: . ties--First Felony: :,.DrMn

^ O hio

gUnder ^be Influence § 8:45 Pit hia D'^`Ind Dm,aner,onvmg Under the Influence § 12:24,

Ijttroductiott to Rg 4511Testin

.191. Implied Consent- . Statutory- Penalties-Iflgh Tier-Felony Penal-ties-^Setond and Subt Flsequeneony Offenden.

MlS;lrit^uU(L l /Yl - l

-WATi:RCRi1Ff j OPERATION OF MOTOR VEIIICf.ES 4511.99

ated by the countyrnt to division (N)-vised Code. The-ursed as otherwise

of abuse, or alcohol and a drttg of abuse, or astatute of the Unitcd Stnies or Of any other state ora municipal ordinunce of a municipnt corpordinnlocated in any other state that is suhstnmialiy simi-tar to division (A) or (B) of section 4511.19 of thel2evised Cutle, or if the offender previously hasbeen convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation ofdivi5ion (A) of scction 4511.19 of' the Revised Codeuncter circumstances in which the vinlation was afclony and regardless of when thc violation and theconviction or guilty plea occurred, the offender isguilty of a felony of the faurth degree. The courts(tall sentem:e the offender in accordance wilh sec-tions 2929.11 to 2929.19 of ahe Reviserl Code andshall impose as part of the sentence amandatoryterm of lucid incarceration of sixty consecutive daysof imprtsonment in accordance with division (G')(t)of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code or a manda-tory prison term of sixty consecutive days of impris-onment in accordance with division (G)(2) nf thatsection, whichever is applicable. If the offender isrequired to scrve a marrdatory term of local incar-ceration of sixty ramsecutive days of imprisonmentin accordance with division (G)(l) of section2929-13 of the dZcvised Code, the court, pursuant tosection 2929.17 of the Revised Code, may imposeupon t(re offender a sentence that includes a termof electronically monitored house arrest, pruvidedthat the term of electronically monimred housearrest shall not commence untii after the offendcrhas served the mandatory term of local incarcera-tion.

"(b) tf, within one year of the offense, the of-render has been convicted of or pleaded guilty toany violation of division (A) or (B) of section4511.19 of the Revised Code, a municipal ordi-nance relating to operating a vehicle while underthe influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or atcoholand a drug of abuse, a municipal ordinance relatingtuoperating a vehicle with a proltibited concentm-tion of alcohol in the blood, breath, or urine,section 2903.04 of the Revised Code in a case in

division (A)(2)(a) before "any other state"; andadded division (O)-

Amendment Note: 1996 ff 72 added dre thirdsentence in tlte first paragraph in division (A)(4)(a).

Atnendrnent Note: t996 S 166 inserted "Exceptas otherwise provided in division (A)(4) of thissection," and substituted "six years" for "five years"in the Grst paragraph of divisions (A)(2)(a) and(A)(3)(a); rewrote !hc first paragrapb of division(A)(4)(a); inserted "to all other sanctions im-posed" and "pursunnt to section 2929-18 Of theRevised Code," in the second paragraph of division(A)(4)(a); substituted "sanction" for "sentence" inthe third parngrnph of division (A)(4)(a); substitul-ed "sanctions" far "pcmtltirs" twicc in division(A)(4)(b); added division (A)(4)(c), suhstitnted"three, ten, or thirty consecutive days of imprison-ment or the mandatory term of lacal incarcerationof sixty consecutive days" and "three, ten, or thirtyconsecutive days of imprisonment or the mandatoryterm of tocal incarceration or mandatory prisonterm of sixty consecutive days" for "Ihree, ten,thirty, or sixty consecutive days of imprisonment" in

division (A)(5)(a); rewrote division (A)(6); anddesignated ciivision (11)(1)(a). Prior therem tlrefrrst pamgraptr of division (A)(4)(a) and division

(A)(6) read:"(4)(a) If, within five years of the offeaye, the

offender has been convicted of or pleaded gniiry tothroe or morc violations of division (A) or (B) ofsection 45t1.19 of the Revised Code, a municipalordinance relating to operating a vehicle while un-der the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, oralrohul and a drug of abuse, a municipal ordinance ^relating to operating a vchicle with a prohibitedconcentration of alc.nhol in the blood, breath, orurine, section 2903.04 of the Revised Code in arase in which the offender was subjeet to thesanetions described in division (D) of that section,or section 2903.06. 2903.07, or 2903.08 of the Re- ^vised Code or a municipal ordinance that is sab-stantially similar to section 2903.07 of the Revised

aovided in divisionn six years of thet convicted of orof division (A) orRevised Ccde, a

operating a vehicleiIcohol, a drug Ofabuse, a niunicipai

a vehfele wilh aihol in the blood,)a of rhe Revisedider was subject toision (D) of that

or 2903.08 of theordinance that is

903.07 of tlre Re-the jury or judgeer the influence ofrhol and a drug ofd Statcs or of anyncc of a mm»cipalstate that is sub-or (B) of section

;ept as provided intence the offenderthirty cronsecutive

ender to a longerof not more thanhe term of impris-ry this division, butseaion, tate court

t sentence consist-tnment of fifteenn fifty-five consec-iored house arrestion 2929.23 of thensecutive days of:lectronicatly mon-ed one year. Therisonment do notseoutively with thered house arrest.

f the offense, ther pleaded guilry toion (A) or (ft) of:ude, a municipalvehicle while un-

irug of abuse, oranicipal ordinanccwith a prohibitedbhwd, breath, orsvised Code in as subject to the)) of that sectian,08 of the Revisedtat is substantially3eviscd Code in ae founti that theof alcohol, a drug

wbich the offender was subjcct to the sanctions rode in a case in which the,jury or judge found thatdescribed in division (D) of that section, section the offender was under the in0uencx of aicohnl, a2903.06, 2903.07, ur 2903.08 of the Revised Code or drug of abuse, or alcohol and a drug of abuse, thea municipat ordinance that is substantially similar to murt shall sentence the offender to a term ofsection 2:303.07 of the Revised Code in a case in imprisonment oF six consecutive da and ma 'which the jury or judge found that the offender was sentence the offender ro a onger definite term ofunder the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or hapismnment of not rnom than one os."alcohol and a rlrug of abuse, or a statute of thc „ A)(6) otwithstanding any section of the Rn-Unitod States or of any other state or a municipal vised Code that authoriscs the suspension of the

1 dte tn anyordtnance of a mtmtcrpat corporauon ocaother state that is substanlialty sintifar to division(A) or (B) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code,the offender is guilty of a misdemeanor of the thirddegree."

Atnendment Note: 1990 11 148 deleted a rufer-ence to section 4511.69(F) frorn division (F); andadded division (P).

Amendment Note: 1999 tl 86 added the refer-ence to division (D)(4) in division (D)(I)(a): andadded division (D)(4)-

Amendment Note: 1997 S 60 inserted "the Unit-ed States or uf" in the first and sixth paragraphs Of

imposition or execution of a sentence or the place-ment of an offender in any treatment program inlieu of imprisonment, no court shall suspend theten, thirty, or sixty consecutive days of imprison-ment rcquired to be impascd on an offender by \division (A)(2), (3), or (4) of this section or placean offender who is sentenced pursu:mt to divismn(A)(2), (3), or (4) of this section in any treatmentprogram in lieu of imprisonment until after theoffender has served the ten, thirty, or sixty consecu-tive days of imprisonment required to be imposerlpursuant to divisian (A)(2), (3), or (4) of thissection, and no court that imposes a sentencx of

&2f7C1(tFliled 01114/2009

R.C. § 2929.13

Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code Annotated CurrentnessTitle XXIX. Crimes--Procedure (Refs & Annos)Chapter 2929. Penalties and Sentencing (Refs & Annos)Felony Sentencing2929.13 Sentencing guidelines for various specific offenses and degrees of offenses (later effectivedatej

<Note: See also version(s) of this section with earlier effective date(s).>

(A) Except as provided in division (E), (F), or (G) of this section and unless a specific sanction isrequired to be imposed or is precluded from being imposed pursuant to law, a court that imposes asentence upon an offender for a felony may impose any sanction or combination of sanctions on theoffender that are provided in sections 2929.14 to 2929.18 of the Revised Code. The sentence shall notimpose an unnecessary burden on state or local government resourees.

If the offender is eligible to be sentenced to community control sanctions, the court shall consider theappropriateness of imposing a financial sanction pursuant to section 2929.18 of the Revised Code or asanction of community service pursuant to section 2929.17 of the Revised Code as the sole sanction forthe offense. Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the court is required to impose amandatory prison term for the offense for which sentence is being imposed, the court also may imposea f inancial sanction pursuant to section 2929.18 of the.Revised Code but may not impose anyadditionai sanction or combination of sanctions under section 2929.16 or 2929.17 of the Revised Code.

If the offender is being sentenced for a fourth degree felony OVI offense or for a third degree felonyOVI offense, in addition to the mandatory term of local incarceration or the mandatory prison termrequired for the offense by division (G)(1) or (2) of this section, the court shall impose upon theoffender a mandatory fine in accordance with division (B)(3) of section 2929. 18 of the Revised Codeand may impose whichever of the following is applicable:

(1) For a fourth degree felony OVI offense for which sentence is imposed under division (G)(1) of thissection, an additional community control sanction or combination of conununity control sanctionsunder section 2929.16 or 2929.17 of the Revised Code. If the court imposes upon the offender acommunity control sanction and the offender violates any condition of the community control sanction,the court may take any action prescribed in division (B) of section 2929.15 of the Revised Coderelative to the offender, including imposing a prison term on the offender pursuant to that division.

(2) For a third or fourth degree felony OVI offense for which sentence is imposed under division (G)(2)of this section, an additional prison term as described in division (D)(4) of section 2929.14 of theRevised Code or a community control sanction as described in division (G)(2) of this section.

(B)(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2), (E), (F), or (G) of this section, in sentencing an offenderfor a felony of the fourth or fifth degree, the sentencing court shall determine-whether any of thefollowing apply:

(a) In committing the offense, the offender caused physical hann to a person.

AWMIRt W) ($Siled 01/14/2009 aw^

O\.k^^.(b) An offense under an existing or former law of this state, another state, or the United States that is orwas substantially equivalent to an offense listed in division (F)(7)(a) of this section that resulted in thedeath of a person or in physical harm to a person.

(8) Any offense, other than a violation of section 2923.12 of the Revised Code, that is a felony, if theoffender had a firearm on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control whilecommitting the felony, with respect to a portion of the sentence imposed pursuant to division (D)(1)(a)of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code for having the firearm;

(9) Any offense of violence that is a felony, if the offender wore or carcied body armor whilecommitting the felony offense of vioience, with respect to the portion of the sentence imposed pursuantto division (D)(1)(d) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code for wearing or carrying the body armor;

(10) Corrupt activity in violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code when the most serious offensein the pattem of corrupt activity that is the basis of the offense is a felony of the first degree;

(11) Any violent sex offense or designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense if, in relation tothat offense, the offender is adjudicated a sexually violent predator;

(12) A violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of section 2921.36 of the Revised Code, or a violation ofdivision (C) of that section involving an item listed in division (A)(1) or (2) of that section, if theoffender is an officer or employee of the department of rehabilitation and correction;

(13) A violation of division (A)( I) or (2) of section 2903.06 of the Revised Code if the victim of theoffense is a peace officer, as defined in section 2935.01 of the Revised Code, or an investigator of thebureau of criminal identification and investigation, as defined in section 2903.11 of the Revised Code,with respect to the portion of the sentence imposed pursuant to division (D)(5) of section 2929.14 ofthe Revised Code;

(14) A violation of division (A)( i) or (2) of section 2903.06 of the Revised Code if the offender hasbeen convicted of or pleaded guilty to three or more violations of division (A) or (B) of section 4511.19of the Revised Code or an equivalent offense, as defined in section 2941.1415 of the Revised Code, orthree or more violations of any combination of those divisions and offenses, with respect to the portionof the sentence imposed pursuant to division (D)(6) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code;

(15) Kidnapping, in the circumstances specified in section 2971.03 of the Revised Code and when noother provision of division (F) of this section applies.

(G) Notwithstanding divisions (A) to (E) of this section, if an offender is being sentenced for a fourthdegree felony OVI offense or for a third degree felony OVL offense, the court shall impose upon theoffender a mandatory term of local incarceration or a mandatory prison term in accordance with thefollowing:

(1) If the offender is being sentenced for a fourth degree felony OVI offense and if the offender has notbeen convicted of and has not pleaded guilty to a specification of the type described in section2941.1413 of the Revised Code, the court may impose upon the offender a mandatory tenn of localincarceration of sixty days or one hundred twent da s as s ecified in division )(1)(d) of section451 l_ 19 of the Revised Code. The court shall not reduce the tetm pursuant to section 2929.20 ,

me-

^ 4BKk e°p^f 2941.1419r r- V^ INDICTMENT

691"gpECIPlCA71ON (or SPECIFICATION TO THE P1R5f

TI e grand jurrrta (or mscrtthc pcrsnn s or proscautingrntog drug or abce Ut'Nt).5 lficadons cotl

.141rJ ped CO

attorocy's nama when apPr°Priate)^futNer find md specify ttwt2941cohol related vehkutu' homldde of patx oQker (ut torth tbe alkgcd offender's mterest in the property, a

in COnat[Odtion zone and pt'br COn's'tMlona de^^n d^ propcrty subjea[ m forfciture, and any alleged

wr mandstory Priso° tenn upon a° use or mtendcd use of the propcrty in the mmmis3ion or(A) Imposition of a thru 6) of seetion 2929.14 of the Rcviced facilintion of Ne offcom):'

offender undar division -(D)(YCode ls precluded udesa the offender is convicted of br pksds (B) The trier of fact shag detcnnioe whether the property is

division (A)(1) or (2) of scdien 2903A6 of the _oricbject^rlty to violatinggu( Revised Codr: and unkss the indiatmcol, wunt ^^ ^

t Htmane^ sum alion described in divisfon (A) af this uction

`t-^ intormation charyug ihe oHetm ^ g^ to thsye or mayye usad^in a delinquent child pnxeeding.m

V previoudy hu been cunvicted of p 7-1-07)(H) of uction 4511.19 of the ^ H 242 rJj11mom violation• of divisioo (A) or or thrce or mme viola-1 tfettse.o"^• Rcvizpd Code or sn rqufvalem

dons ofao)' wmNnation of tFmsa diwiom and oHettrea. 1Ua

ot t>" 29411418 Attemp ted rePe specification, tion ahdi x stated at the c°d ot the hoM

^ i^nt, counr,or infermatioa and shall be slated in 7ubttan- (A) lmpot;tion Of a mandatory :odcfmife Priwn tetm mmist-

daay the £opowing form: ing of a v' •um tcsm of frvo yeara and a matimum tcrm ofan otfender pursuant to divisionTHE FIRSr tyC.• n upon

,•SPEC.IplGTION (or, SPECIPICq710N.raon: m the 'ix2)(e) of scUf°n 2971.03 of thc Revised Cods:

COUNT). 'Iim Graad luron (or insertn e

J^r find a°d Ox otfrnder is com'icted of or pleads guUty to

ltotnay's name whea approp , . t un3ea the i°dkament, count in the indict-^prqccupng a ^ ogeye speeifw that the

spsdfp that (sct forththa! the oHendm pravtouaiY bs! ^-^

a ur oidar at tha time of thetuny to three or m°ro '"^ n^ [^ded o8 Lycwmnvicled of or Pkahad the oHender mmpktedtion 4511.19 of the R' -^,^ d thatf 1 ^^ .scc „^ an_= diviaion (A) °r (B) o

equiralenl offetux, nr three or ttmra +hot" (.Pj u ^ ^yN.u .as attemptcd, the o(feodw^ would v ^^^ tt^

tion of those divisiom a°d offenses)." ^ t 0 violation of dividon (AH7)(b)o

. s eamay be uzed in a dehnquc VS . (B) 'tLe specdcauonfor the purpoK detmlKd in scetinn 2152 the indfessnent. wunt. o< dformadw

Cy As usad in Uda secd o0. „W he Revir. and shall be

statcd in

uivaknt 'k sar°esubstantially the follow•iug form:

meaning as in section 4511.181 of t •'• ,-Spp,Cty.yCA7TON (or, SPE(-7PICATION TO THE FIRST

20l H 32, eJj. 6-J-04)WUN7). Tho Orand lumn (ar iru+;rt riatwhcn approp e) turshaafmd and

'(

(B) The no° desen'bad in ` ;^^ 1 \...s\^ .evised Coda.rt°ted at the cnd of thc body of(s^ea nt child prota "^ ll bh

a nanteprorcyuhnE attomeg

^ 2941.1416Specitlcatlon eoneer°i°g p°or misde• speaffy thst (aet t°M thst the °Bender wu sixtean ycan of agc

os older al tbe time of thc commisdonthat wuf attemptcA, the

mppor OVI of[Ensaa . had the oltender mmpleted tbe rap(a violation of division

(A) (mpositioo at a mandatery, additioatl. deflnim jag mtm of o6ender wauld have ^ on t t^

l

heRavised Cada) ••up to six months upon an offender under divtdan (E) of section (AxIxb) o( sectlpo 29P1-p2

2929.24 0f the Rovised Coda u prrxh"kd unles the inforvutian4511.19 of ahe (200 S 260. eJf. 1-2-07)

chuging s Holaha° ot division (B) o( a^ t^ty yema ofs ed/leatioa: ricNm

Raviaed coda medfi^ ^'y^ e yf or pwdcd a+dtty to 2941.1419 Attempted rape pwwiMdth° oftettil, prerios .^ ^otBeauon rhall be under ten Yeara of age6yc or moro equt•aknt ofteraw.alataB4t the ead of the 11udy bf the ioiOtsrutbn +nd e hail b° tmpmiHon of a mandatory indefmile ptisort term consuting ofatated in aubstaaddty thtf0lkaviog tnrm: minheum term of tm yeara aod a mawuu°t term of life

a or Wa ptoseahng Impr^wuxmeat upon an offender purmant to division"SPEC7PIG170N. (Iruert rae patrad , of section 29'11.03 of the Revised Code

f^attomcy'soamn as aPPropriate) further 9nds and rpceitfea tWt tA)l)He W) or ( 13)(2)(b)

b rhat th- oflender. withm twenty yearr o[ coounitting rhe a raduded uolw the offauder a connctedof qr pkads gudTy to

aha indlcmtcni, coum in the indico-f ke Yrve at mpted rapa and unS (set torto([etrse, previouely'hed been mm'tctad of or pkaded guB ty to

ntent. or fnfavoati°n charging the oB°nae spe+ cqu'rv+knl Offenscs)•° dqa that, had thepted

J or morcth,

^ (B) Aa uud in dividon (A) of thir rcction. "aquiraknt of- o1f°°da[ mmpkmd lhe npe t^tviol°tionof divisioo (A)( 1^b)g of rapeguunve bbywotdd d Code and spuifiu that onc o!181 of thenion 1511 . the Rchs°of of290'f•o2^ fcnae•• has ihe same mendng as in se [ipnsccRcvised Code. the followwing applics:

f2IX4N 163, eJfC 9-23-04) (A) 'ihe vktim was under ten yems of age.ly

itUrt of (B) The oHcnder nttempted to commit rapo by purpose"t (

^eor^ of Ihe1 2941.1417 Specifaeation cOncerutug compelong the_ iotim to VePn

^°f aec or o dw at thc t me

t property ---- -

(A) proporly 4not snbject to forfeiture in a ariminat caee co^c ^nmft^ttion

sh

ag bc snted at thr: end of the body of theount in hall be suted in subs[an-he ^t d1' °t^^^^

'o t^ ^^^ s, c"t unkss the indictmen , indictmant, muot, or informadon anni^uchatging the oHente spcai8ef, the alleged tially the following farm:lmown at the timc of filing, the natare^t^a ^^ ^pt^rn

(or, SPECIF1CATfth

ON TO THE FIRST^ offendefs interest in the property, w the ^SPEC(FICAl70N

and, if lhc Propctty is ulicged to lie an inaWm tY' COUNt). The Grand lurors (or i°scn e person's or theh rty in the commission or - 'name when apprapdate) further find andero sf t pe p ^qding attomey.,,, atlegcd use or intended uu o

-- facifilalion ot the offense. The speaifiohon ahalf be stated at the hatead of the body uf the itoent, cdunt. or information and shail specity that (set rarth that. had ihe oHender completed the mpcwa attensptcd, the offender wuuld have bacn guilty uf andict

O be in substaotially the following form:

MINAL I.qvy

aPPlicableperiod of

icted of oribject to aation'/or!act on an

Providesonal defi.an thirty

manda-credited

iths for atence for

sding lo-Ly OMVIgreaternotified

-isked ifi periode defen-imunitye judgerent, at

tion onprovi-

prison

ialf-way

h Dist.where

3e then

ffersoned of aing of-refore,

R.C.of oneo R.C.s first

R.C.

DECI6ION TO IMPOSE PRISON 'jENTENCE

local Incarceratlon for the mandatory penod. This provision also mayrule out a period of imprisonment for such offenders even followingviolation of community control sanctions. If RC 2929.19(C)(1) governsand precludes an additional prison term following service of a manda-tory period of local incarceration, the trial court is limited to addingcommunity control sanctions.'RC 2929.19(C)(2) does not preclude additional prison terms for

third or fourth-degree OMVI felony offenders sentenced to prison forthe mandatory period of incarceration.(A defendant who previously was sentenced to a mandatory term of

localincarceration] for a felony OMVI offense must be sentenced to amandatory term of incarceration in a state correctional institution.Although the statute now contemplates subsequent felony OMVI of-fenses to be felonies of the third degree, the prison sentence is ap-plicable, as well, to subsequent fourth-degree felony OMVI offenses.Subsequent fourth-degree felony OMVI convictions require a manda-tory prison sentence of 60 or 120 da s

§ 117:3

it is possible that an offender sentenced to local incarceration maynot be sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment or to imprison-inent even following a violation of community control sanctions. Thereis an ambiguity in the statutes pertaining to imprisonment of fourth-degree felony OMVI offenders. C 2929.13(G)(1„Land RC4511.99(A)(4)(a i appear to allow a trial court to sentence a defen-ant to a man atory period of local incarceration and then to sentence

that offender to an additional prison term:'However"RC 2929.19(C)(1)precludes an additional prison term if the o ender was sentence to`-

y .^ Third-degree felony OMVI offense. A defendant convicted of or

pleading guilty to a third-degree felony OMVI offense may besentenced to a term of imprisonment under the range of sentences forthird-degree felonies in RC 2929.14(A). There is a mandatory prisonsentence of 60 or 120 days for such offenders. Whether repeat felonyOMVI offenses are charged as third or fourth-degree felonies, thecourt must sentenc6 the defendant to serve at least a 60- or 120-daymandatory sentence in a state correctional institution.B

Mandatory terms of incarceration may not be reduced. Offenderssentenced to a mandatory prison term may be assigned to an"intensive program prison," but thesentencing judge must be given

4511.99(A)(4)(a), can be served in jail, but not prison. Likewise, R.C. 2929.16(A)(3indicates that any m o mcarcera Ion m

, p , an oge er cannot exceed one year. ).t*'See also State v. Lamis. 139 Ohio App. 3d 617, 620, 744 N.E.2d 1260^ C h (8th 'Dlst.u C

exceas o e sixy- ay man a ory termmust be served in jail not rison thd t ^^' /^

Jya oga ounty 2000) ( Because electronically monitored house a t irres s a

nonresidential sanction, it falls under the umbrella of community-controlled sanctionsand is not part of the sentence. It is not a stacking of sentences.").*°RC 2929.14(G)(2). S,^ee also fil.ate v R.oh135 Ohio App. Sd 21, 25, 1999-Ohio-

886, 732 N.E.2d 1018 d Dist. Henry County 1999) r'The trial court therefore was=yt. authorized by statute to impose_g rison sentence _oappe an or e reason t atR. . 29Gs 2913(Gj(1) provides.that.those offenders,,such as appellant who d_o not sa Is ythe eritPria in divlslon (G)(2) are not to be sentenced ^to a uiTson term °^,

NZ ^ I 1^ 3- SA a RC- f^E6sCsI-q q 6 -^(c)

l^ G^^p

y<<pm ^? U^ °* .rmw° m °^ "y...r•r. ^.re;{ ^ ^^ ^^ ^'^^a:.:a-mav

m'^^_en.o'....4to E:..m (D p t^' C^3'M W d^o 0]^ m p °- m °y^ mry. ID ryp ^. +^. mmZn^.i^ s•i m., o rnm

b O^C° y '^+^ ° ^

Im^, .p ^ ^ ^,^ ^ A+^. ^(]^a.^.i. c^°- ' a mo^ C W p, ^'•n n_ p^ ... ^p m •' ^^ R+ p> n. ^. .-^° cµ^m^' C^.o^°OGm °^ C° mp ^ ^`*O ^m K m °I

^ mn^ o 'c Wc cr 4mnoma p ry:^p mE ^^^^npo_.^a ^pam^o'^w°°^m^ i b

,,W^o-a o'^m°^: a ^`^^o°o^^e^^ ^^^^

a`h a°F°'v`° Ne•r^pmr ^ ^ moeu^°°°onS.m^Nk'sn^^.R+oWmcm+^o y R:

'.^ y 4] P. in' ^ O fp ^ O' O ^. ^^ n m p. C P+ O^^i G^O '^ Y ^ v t•h C `s imA w 4) o yNm^om^ mp l^ ^N. + mp ^ ^ p

m o^ ^ a, m v P. p.-^ 4 m i-+ a o t" A' ^ o e. 4 m N m R+ ..y o° m'C m ^-D. L•y m bC •^ab n' °tym^S^o^OONn^°mo'^^;^1`^a p^^ Wmpa^ . ypw ^oc.^ YC•' iP m^^.•m. 2. ^[i•1 D Q p. O m p^' ey.eC p a. ^-+ m . p^ m o 1y n r^C ^ ^+ ^ p^ m. ^+G p vq ^v. R

fD fD Y ^.•.a7 ^y ^C .y'^ `! ^m ttl^^ 4^ n'CJ µ m .4^KM O n'U rT^.er+.^+Q^7^ ^+G•`^ a.,.G ^•^' m 4^ `rta a. 0 p rj^ m y. p ° m o^ m^s o c b' ^`m G^ i'+m- v+A ^ G

!,.^ m"^.p W. e..y ^G ,

^'„T+^ - ^a m m c^. J p^ o'C o +y-•p. ^ . n.a'° 'd c+^,^.o ^^^'-y'^..lPp y.m.^"^y'+^m .^.. 0.^^^C 1•^^ .^

^m^ s`m°•e^^^_£ mm°p•'G. m^^P.'^'O p'm'm^ m^• m ^^^^..n.,°'N'b.K°-.^^^o^oo pR^ c°^^.c^< ^ b+`"^^m m G cNO^ama a" ° m o^a° ^s ^^.o n-m H° ^•m m D"^•r^:° G^^'^ A

. c'C+t' ^cap^, . tlj"P ^Cmm^^^^GC^cCIi^ mp^.°9 ^ o.^Ko^o^.,^^m^,;o-^^^o^^.w'^^m ^ C,D ^N m`e'S'a ^ m ep•' m ^yb .^.er m iD 6•f'O oy e*m o f9 c+^m n 2 c+

n^`d R ^- ^F,^,w^ mm°J^m^,'D^,,,y^.P ^'y°pW^a.m^D.m^:^c^i•to my^y`v ^^•ma^^ °,

Wm ^ m°a^oc^^ ^ mn^^'^a R:o^^ wm°w^a^po^^^^°^m^^.wmm^^^^K^ ^^`lc^ ° `+ ^ ^'• `^ ^ °^ `° fN+"' p ^^ n b ^ K ^ ••°s p +9 ^'i •on ,°n,^

= ^(^n t1G t^c m."d ^ my , "! m o • ^. ^- ^ . °c :^ m m R m

60 0 o.mn ^•:Oa t^'o "r3'R'm ;m o e+-^C o m mV'^C e'^+°p m QLC^ m^'e^ o^'^?'o "t^"ip^ n"'^e'dp ^.

p,m F m H^^ ^ cD m a° ^, (yD .+7.+ G1+ " m 8^^ Q^j; N`a^., p e^ O er O yaP^p m m a.. ° v w. y N Q m ^ ^ o o ^^m ^'^' m hy co o^^m ^ ^ o ^3 .. p C] N. `",}o ^`{^ ^^ ^^•^P m y 3^ p o. ^ m m^' n' y m ^^^ G,' y^' m N p^ . m C^. C] t^^^,' m^ o' ti

^^,.^ pm^m^^°^^ °'m^'c^ °ym^Cp ^ °^.K^ o^;^^ci-^b^^aRC^op'^m^Wp^^^.^y M R m tp^ ^p ^

^p^-a^^ '^n' A^" ^^^^ ^^^^ CC^ bN p'(Dy ^ A ^ Ry_•-r.o ,y p(6 C .a r'• t'i. er'.iJ..`J • p, ^ ^ o ^. "o, C S^ Z7 ^, t^ o m m ID m td.yz °e ^-`:m o ^ '^i m W^ *

s £ ^ G ^ tr^^ ^ n _^ ^ :, . -o•_>' ^.. c^ ^^ ^' b D" W m o ^, ° a m m o ^ m^.+. ,.+. n. ^- m S. ^. Q "«sF '^p.+. ^-.

'JG.m cn'i' n^ C.^ 0 10 ^y ^ ^ ^ y o^ m.^ ^..^ o^ H mqq p m m- C] ^:9. ^m N,^' m r(] C

o ^c' o omy^°in^o^mS. mma `^.#''^om,^'+*o-h"+h`"o'^F;pp,my, tb•^t^"'m^'aa^ ^ m m m!^] : ^p'M^m."....M ^«c? ^.

m°m`° `n'Y".«•!°^ K^'UmmG+. ^m°' 'a^:,^^^^^`^~A^^oYmp^^^m^mo

.=.M^;^ O - ^ Cm ^ W cm+e•t r m°C b m.. ^ ^ - R+ 1 m S^ W Fy }y ^ o.+ o^+ .-. epy, m. +'y p

',.^°' y^'r `^ m........b.^.^e^?rh+^.c^.;? a^a_^^.: . ^^.^^,.^pa ^n'A.^._. „An.^.+my r? ^^a^ipl."^m^'.a^ .^,_.•. m.„m E,u.^^,.

^^ ^o ^G mOm ^ m mm mO^rn`^ `^p' -'- _iaa -,.. ............... ..,."mq7v p-Rein°•.nc ^y o'^n^.•+3'0< ^WGoavG. o m Gb tYj .° cD y N •. ^^ ^^'^WK N^C °a m mm^ ^^V ^^^^ ^ p am^'^^tiWs ,i b ;C.']¢^ marxb5ms'^ti • mO .+ mm m pw^b m^ rrmnHt^ ^ A cmo^. ^°oo t•+t • m^'` -^^ o .. om^ m .7 p^n m;^ ah D3 ^o + ^ ^r ]' ^ a o ° m r"i ^. ^31 Jy „t '^+mnemm mm m.„-.+-h m +^ o f3. (A ^ .+ m * ^ ^;6^ Oo ,g m e•F ^ ^^p p^

^^.^'R'b«*'pmm^L°+^£'n^.^tlmm^ ^ C.q ^^e7.F0^'^rC^° ^m^Jf` D"ptR'H o^^i . iP m ^^Q.^^^^` C^oq m m p,aq ^}, ^•. y ni p`oT p°. ^'• m ^ m ,F^..a, po ey^ts e. d C7 ^ ab R+ m..•. ^ m Uq P. ^ m Q o n

^'' R' '° ^G•' ^ °I' 'm'C 7Q M :n :" ' d6^^ o :r^ mm D a' •^r n'y '^^ ^ e .+ ^m e+en i ^^7 L1ba.,•-y N a o C ° m'G l7 ^ m . L: ^y. ... m .^y, r+ r+. r^'y' O pi 'T.n"n^ O~ C:+ m oS^ m° ^

^^

,. irip o m m..aGy.o y ^^ ►4^y f3 b p^ nEta3^.^mC,a.moy .^ m^ S. ct. ommRy

°v'mo ^ m'da^mCi' ^'(^°' cfD,^p m-p m m^' ^ p^x5.%^ w or^ <.C• ^^-m `cS m ;'R mm' '^m a'^^ cogo „ s+^ ^^ r y m Q^ Ua m m^ a d m n «+. n ymS.^"m P e^+d'C ^ n:^l m" n^ a M ^•-'2 ^'7 -0"^m m- a^ ^ m C- 't7 A t7 -^ o ^^m Q+W^ M F Y y ey m O'o o' ""-{^m^

^

.. m,.^...^:oj3m roopm ti,^3^ o ^ ^ m ap.• momm d p^ m m^mi^m a^'^^R'°'by°p^pq ....^^eo^' ^n,g^=^"" .C^mod ^'L1o^raCpmN.^^pp+ ,i"+

ps ^".^.p"S^'G.^d^mE^pm<..om^n ^S'^ ^no @ m.•. t^C^:E' ci+mm ^n .^+.P mmm^cp!i ^n ^} o '^..'^^ C- C^-i 43 i 1^"d ^ F^ '^

h

m m o .{ Q+ V. O ry.tD .m m •y.mi m^+m ^m .+a' p`C m 0... ^ 3.m ..i .

^^ ^ ° ^`S ^ ^ ^ ^ g `^ ^ C ^ ^ p ^ ym

"'p,^ ''°'<.p ^+C ^m o S. 'm.r.iU1.K a m ^ ". ^ ^ Q m ^ ^.n m ^-]7.m am o N ^RaQ^.,^^o^^^'ma^,.3^om ^^qNNa ^ M^.FO3°'°^'oM^y^S..7.^.°' m.o^.D.^+FM+.^ ^.n ^ V` QpRN^^'^'^'^^ C

m.f3 m@.vm^as'•^^ m.^"'•"'^ o G^.oc,^^. !D c»^y G A^"a"o ^n.•^-.n D ts'O p\eT m•.O Y^ ^ Ny ^ N^O m

`,+.. mryp m m•.+F''Oao^ew^^a .. •a^^''`^tc.o^o m^: o^fDp Dp ^+ ...^`CCbmryb^^°n'ta

^r ^ . ° T o m ^ L ' ' ^ ° m ' ro ^ m ` ^ ^ ^ ` ^ o A I ' ' . o . `^^ . ^ ^ ^ ^ • ^ ^ ^ oo ^ ? e ^ ^ . ^ P i ^ o ^ ^ ' p b . t ^ i ^ n+ u ^ ! ' ' ` m e wD i . . . ^ : ^ ' D ^ .

^^^°mFCy^w3W^m^mm^o'°'^- mm_m"^C^GOmP..=o^o^ ^ ^ a C:Gaa^ri• *p.mt. m O t m $ ^u^ m;(^ ^^^,^

. pm mm^^pqL'^tOp• fy's'^c mFtu^^^6b•m^-n+^ ° m m ^ oG, a•,^ A mz '(, ^. . ^ ^ m° o '.^"i ^ ^° ^ m `^ m m o>n.rn+. o^m n:Qp ma'P'C ow ^ a. ^ F.^.^ao.y m Sng^a m . a'm ti m m p: ° G a `^'n ^ B ^^.. my Q ctau p A: ^. m•°n m m m°+ < L' A. n P G m^ O^ Fl' ^ 0' ^i .P ^ ao m P. b' p^^^m^.^ °csme'°^mmYriwoa m m@°^^.^m aN

. S.n.++, .+,.., e ••d s^_•<!^ m!f +r E.?^.. ^'^:8

( m ^ e w q o•^ ^ d ^,b •-o a: w `'i-+ ^ ^-'^' s'°.°^, b'' & '' `^• a ^ t'7n^•LGm !^^ mmm ocp pTJ+p r0. m ^

^J 'Cm^u' o'y• • ^•b G+. O n O e'- ^. N ^y a g a m o m ^ a-^ t+'o m o' -^, ... „

^^O

"'m <p ^ W" rl ^^t..a, o^+, ^ a. omµioo^m°^ ^^mti .. ^+ S^^'.om9-mE°D

^ A.o^am$°^^V^^^om^^ ^

CCy ^ ^. mmd5"mm

e+O"' ^ CN^m^MOOO^+i +

_^,^ '*, yyef ^^W

^9 ^ o^I. P. ^

^ ^^ m m ^ ^ ^

p .

^^^ m f+^ on+u•a.^ ^e ^•(mp ^ dm m m^. m.m m^Cm m`< •m^o<y.^. m mm,:,,m^amm•^-- p^ay

.-° 0 „ y

`^ ^,:m o m '•i m^^_m.YmL^,^m^ E .^g^"^G^,v^•^^m a:'o

^+.,6^°'= ^°n

t2o oB°^es^^^ *'

^,^

P e m'+f n G o +"' c. m° m° ^ y^ p^

. my^:^ n[' p.so R+^+Sno°n O.+oc^'citmom^AEo r m

F Om M E' S °: ^ ^ R' H m C

^wm ^m^^O{Y .O".^ m m 0 m. .. .+ ti arjei ^'

^

.-. m 3.

yooamo^o^^^^a:"'i?: a.•*^ ^

n- ^ ^ ^^^^m^°^ ' ^ ".

a a m m a co a^ m .* ° a y m GE'^^Cy ,. .

4^ m c:m m G ^ 34Y

^ m m.p,:^m"0- •n ^ C ^••s .... -

m m^m ^o m4`p, ..`':9'^ a.°'m s ^^ p^^ H^ ^b

mmyC^.^«mC^R7b^*o^CO^^ oo tin ^ -m s• m^••n °^^ m m n' G p o. p3 0 ^^ m ^°. .

°a^a,^D ^^" t^•^ <*o•e o m ^ m m °' ^^'E ^ ^a^^^^`

mdt^ e+^pie..^fDm ^•^ ^PUdO.^R^

^ ^° p^ N p^ CJ^

^ .sCi ^^f^ r ' +^''^^^.m^,.. ei• .C.°^# ^° ^ .•. ^.^. m. "s '`^^ n .+ - fD -

^ .N ^ ^ ^ ^" ^ c^r :o.b ^,N^ ° Qp" o^ Mv ml ^ A^h ^ ^hcr *t

^ `^ '7 m i:.^ cD

P ^yry

tJ M'.7''m °R

H"O

em'a "^ ^ p +{^R iD1' Akcoomb m^o

re (D en . M.y^

G_1^ m^ W p,^^m

.`^`^' i•^Pt.a:

@, ^' o ^. ,z,,. ^.^.. .^ ^ ^ K o y .^. m^' ^ 'e+ !y ^ m m+4

^ ^ ' ^-h z^' •^^ "^o -C' P^ ^ +. . ^7 N-O •Ti'm m^. ^o Cs p - ►d .^--+- p^ m^ °^ n• m p

tom .` ..o^ _^ .Dp am},^ypo rm ^

^

n^m^^^mp[^

°p ^~t ^f'^' ^'W `

mC . '^^S •^Nr°•y^"ry m `C m ^.^ S

F

0 p,` eo- t - e•f...et+.^`"'ma'ot7 R7^ O ^' !C! y` ^ .7' °^• Cn O^

^ mp .^ m^y ^ e^.. PC b m O^ op^^.^np. ^ o-+.

^-mpm^o e+"o

+° O N ^ p^

a ^._^ ^. "S f-+ o^.- -m m- .:^ p^

'•'

•

..n a^ m^m +^ •h

H .%D m"'y H R ^ fD (D Ry G+,. m. ^

^ n °q..^ ^.D..^^'m . ^,°"^"rn ^ CV^m^K ^'G m O+ ^•^^` N•°•l O O+Y. ^m iG•

^I ^ ° I h L° ^ r. 0 ^ ^ Q^m -l, t ^uu ao^^ U %cA O} i ^1115

ls ^Ah/ ^

'ljGE•., 1i-r1"A-bs s -bGl.f rutS__ ffYll,omE

G a6 V55.5t W L-1(9O^a3

^jE^loa^ , aooZ W^ l5 3^

a oot-tao 3`^1 (0--) 3 acxH

S ^f^(25 WEC151,JM*C 0t" O[i`U NG J lY JO^^ 1

A^p (p 0 ^s+ Ft ►-^o°► ,aoa^

5^,^1S+A^ ^ o+^ U. ^q^^tIJS 61;p 1 300UK 3^6qSrra E o6i^!) (w 5 OL-s^ aoto w30-z ,

iutJMl^ Cc)uIJSc-( V. L pj^^ w.2R.E. L,

la4 , ^RCK) 506 , 4aq ckC a`3(0 l,, a00 , ogib 9a-7

cl 4^i^ ^5 . ^^^1Wt ^9oa^.^8 (^^ ^J ^: 0^+-00Lo O44b 335^ ^

^0^Oo ,74- {lf1 yZ lc)xArynAti cr 6t&tN6N4l ^ t 17

;^ ... ^ s+a^ ^ a,^^ ^4. ^l^t^s ao^o 1►.^l 3^^^o^t aCxO oaioL41qa, bbl^o PW `7, aoto

cJC 06Q 3-^14jo^ , f^cb ►^^o^t^

^.._1 s^ ^d VCL Us, Mtkok^^^^ ao^o^ w^ ka55q^ o^^ J^r^a ^ ^^ VS• ' ^^ ^^^-C^^ "^'/ 1:^^7-03 o^j

Te-lAW I qrrtr^ E^lh {^eho ^

`-^kStS 00t.) c^u ((..S

`"'^^1. 35^ ^,. `^^^ ^^-^, o^^, s^- ^^ ^^t^, ^^-^1J^ a, 1,uaLl t/lm`? - oEt La

^^x,> %1 Uy W Z&Amu1,(^ ^LL^ l(7.3A&l+oS ^010 L)l 33 149-7a ,

RM 5T" 'C^-ts.k- acD, o.`^/^ L^4W, ^^/Y\5

3^ V.,. Disup1^n^ 5t-^^•

^jb^ ^ G3 ^ ^ tJ^ d^9 • 31^1 ^ ^^o ^ `'7 z^.L- 301 C) wl ^as11

oW-Lb q p1s* 9oto ,wW `qW Pa

p^b L-IV`l, ft^p "T Q^5-r '^ptl1, 100, 6'^-CCt3-Ll .kALf ,,5LWL

V bEuts 1^`-

^ . s A MR w1 -7(pD9a3aAEA) aIJ "IKKl45EAi,t,6eg!F

PmdLoL aotD , tJ iw7ci 5cQ, ok-,

^ g, jf"^ Vt, i5^ ^a^r ^^^ `lr ^. a^'7i ^Cb^• b(^c^

L11a-t^^ ► a , t a^t,'1.

lS q

;aO-7 Wc g005.^ ^^

SHERROD BROWNOHIO

COMMITTEES:

AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION,ANDFORESTRV

APPROPRIATIONS

BANKING, HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS

VETERANS'AFFAIRS

SELECTCOMMITTEE ON ETHICS

Mr. Robert Harsh. #: 547-305P.O. Box 550015802 State Route 104 NorthChillicothe, Ohio 45601

Dear Mr. Harsh:

United ^5tate,s ^SenateWASHINGTON, DC 20510

October 26, 2011

Thank you for your recent letter regarding your current legal situation.

We have thoroughly reviewed your correspondence, and unfortunately, we know of no actionthat can be taken by a United States Senator to assist you with this legal matter. Senate EthicsRules strictly prohibit me or any member of my staff from providing legal advice and frombecoming involved in an active legal matter. Therefore, we urge you to seek the advice of anattorney if you require legal assistance.

Per your request, we are returiming the documents that you asked to be sent back to you.

Sincerely,

lmd 0'rnwwSherrod BrownUnited States Senator

SB jp

Enclosure

PRINTED ON RECYCIED PAPER

Representative Terry A. Johnson89`h House District

October 6, 2011

Robbie Harsh547-305PO Box 5500Chillicothe, OH 45601

Dear Robbie,

It saddens me to hear about your seven year jail sentence. I also regret to inform you that as astate legislator, I have no jurisdiction intervening in the judicial branch of government. Due tothe system of checks and balances that exists in our country, a judge does is not obligated torespond to any inquiries from state legislators.

Once more, my capabilities are limited in such a way that I cannot intervene in court-relatedissues. I am very sorry that I cannot assist you in this matter.

Terry A. JohnsonState Representative

7ommittees: Contact InformaHon•

7eterans Affairs - Vice Chair svcvcv.house.state.oh.us Office: 614-466-21243ealth &Aging 77 S. High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43ai5-6ur. Toll-Free: 1-8oo-282-0253'ransportation, Public Safety, FAX: 614-719-6989& Homeland Security "With God All Things Are Possible" - Motto of the Great State of Ohio Email: district8oCa^ohr.state oh us

1616r) O,^ V$C2 I WEDNESDAV,FE6RUAR

Hearingdate set Ifor firedofficialFormer assistantprosecutoraccused of alteringindictment.

Staff Report

HAMILTON - A hear-ing date has been set con-ceming an indictment But-

JasonPhillabaum

ler CountyProsecutorMichaelGmosersaid wasalteredunderorder fromformerAssistantProsecutor

Jason Phillabaum:Visiting Judge Guy Guck-

enberger has schedtiled ahearing for 2 p.m. March9. The retired judge fromHamilton County wasassigned to the case lastweek after Butler Coun-ty Judge Michael Sagerecused himself.

Gmoser filed a motionlast week in the case ofTyree Johnson, stating thefirearms specihcations inhis indictment were addedwithout presentation to -andavoteby-agrandjury. The motion tivas filedshortly after Gmoser wasnamgd interim prosecutorand a day before he bestedPhillabaum and thvo othersto get the appointrnent bythe Republican Party Cen-tral Committee.

Phillabaum was tem i-nated by Gmoser the dayafter his appointment.

Umoser said the case.gainst 17-year-old John-

son, who is being tried asan adult on felonious assaultandrobberychargessEem.=.. ^ming from an Qct, 3 shoot-

L1c ioL:lryt,y 5E/lJ-t _i0c(^f YJ

ing outside the Boys and ^1f_ Girls Club imHamdton, was

presented to a grandjury byAssistant Pmsecutor JoshMuennich without gun spec-ifications for the ifive cfiarg-es. Phillabaum told Muen-

'nicti to add the specifica- ^^ ^^J^ r

1,tion, which he refasedto do, _9-according to Gmoses Philla-

arL .

baum then told a stenogra-pher to alter the indictrnent,Gmoser said.

Attomey Mike AIlen,whorepresentsPhilla- ^t (^^ ^baum, said his client has VIdone nothing wrong and ^rtheissue is pofitically drfv- 0- 'n p ( I / (/ ^(+ I(I l ^en. Allen filed a motion to (. ^! l•1 ^[, L V U.Jquash a subpoena issued forPhllabauni

Vcfzc(

C^r^-^^f^ ^ 1^AU^ V ^{&6?G ^^^^^^sc SWL ! J 4 " V -r At/lJ LlJ tyJ 'J` I l S l L`V

-1b

OxL6= c.^',C ^=r(

C

4-V1,-- q0v

-0-1,5 ^ ^ , 1 1^ Ce>1Ct Ic^^^ ^^ )' o1^ x3^

- °

`JGLI SctY^

^^.

I^ a 0/1 Ar ,-1-h ^, r/I ^` ^ ^ r! J

^^U KL:Eo _ko 4v- w^.+ OAu-^^ AkE^ce.. .^^ . .

S^+t^ ^F o^l^ V^ ^i ►^z.l ^1^2^^ ^ 2 - ^oa(o - ^3- ^ sbo ^-F c^o s ► o^ bt^^ (Ly-^ 300`t - o ^-' cD

IvAS AlSp CtttItLt^ 3J CbF A. C(Ll.rvtE KJEtJEIL S)awvu --^b •-F-!2r^u2L^; IVt ^^^^ Fc-J^tfr,t^ o^-.^^ t cl lg.,T fn^ W, T ^O k64- qlcni (AuC a Atv(I^uu^, ^a^5o 1^61 ^trv. 1 cur^s N^^ ^wQti&tEVJ

t c.A_-(--c`cW c L^F-1-,c1't_. tr^ .-E-kE_ vi-> d.^ 1-{ l_ fZe,C, 019^(. iq IG --TZ^JL titvvi w^^[ t%WvLQiUY, tr^' U,U6kW^6 tC2^w^ii-Q.4 c Co4 ^t^u,w-t 5

h«► -A6U^^ „-t^^./ ^

7El l -4-kc vV\ .^, •,e 4, C NEw PtLo 5Ee crto2 Mic (1 r}e / Gos, hc 2

StaffWrlte^ , ^ ^ ^^aofthe^. admiratiody"Gntoseisatd: 'subooena a0d, GinoFet addPd hrmwn pki14 .

tQ•the grand lur}; snd.prusecntor He has won n1y:By Laurett Pacit `

rseuYUWUIx - .sason rmua^ f, , :. :ofPHiitabaum's : ° 13amrt.`whd ^mnaiinind^ilMoaum nag tc sc [u81au aS ^uuor ; {ttiag surfaced:; : than.^;qgar to be prqsocut

',County`asSigtant:.p?'useuttkii[:?ndz -.'

ePtat^on to"' and a vote by - agrapd'jury:

++ tYltering an indictment or pros-ecuting a'case on charges thatwere not considered by a grandjur,ycould result in criminal

^.charges; accordiiig to offlcials:Johnson's case was assigned

to Pfiillabaum and is to be triedbefore Butler County CommonPleas Judge Michael Sage. OnTuesday, a subpoena vas sent toPhillabaum. It is unclear wheth-er P}iillabaum was the prosecutorwho presented the Johnson case

o .....,.w ^,,,.-.courttadaytoans,4etques6oiis€ Mithdek^ electedesday, vacation'tbrough.^VedpestJa$#"ilid:ahout a gra>Sd iury inihctmenE.;r: Gmoser? night b7^Butlei not resigh,mose>: said•Philla-that maq`havobeerj atten d County.itepublican:IIarty Central bauni would receiye his let2er of

Micfiael 6moserthe:county's^^ Committee fo 5ll tke. unexpin^l temunation today.;.nCwly appomted prdseeutor, filed term of former:Prpsecutor Robin: "I tfiought it was bestfor the..a mptiitq Moa^^ iu the case`of; PipQr,_wfio isnow a 12ttr District prosecutor's offrcdtn-elmimate .Tyree Johnaot^statingthe Courtof Appeals judge the tensiotr thai would $e meui•" `arms specdicaho,its.in his indict- PhillaCiaum hadrun against tabte,."- Gmoser said;. "I dd wishment'weie`added vwithout res n- Gm h a pi d 118 out "

been su¢poe^agd tv apbeatnl,:,'

oser;. w o a e of hirnwellipossible 235 votes. , Phipaliaum said Wednesday;.

Within houta of his appoint- "Many doors will open' when..ment, Gmoser had terminated another one closes:".Phi7labaum and replaced hhn with Heha&no comment about theanother losing candidate for the /: subpoena or the grand jury.issue.prosecutor's post, Lance Salyers: J Jotlnson,17, who is being

Salyers, a former assistant tried as an adult, is facing threecounty pmsecutor, resignedlate counts of feloniousassautf andlast year after accusing Phiâa- two counts of aggravated robberybaum of plagiarism. Gmoser said f for a shooting that occurred Oct.he hired Salyers. Tuesday night; ( 3 in Hamilton. Sach charge cur-nnting he beGeved the Monree :pntly includes a gun specifica-resident had integrity and talent. tion that would add an automaG

"That is from my own experi- ic three additional years for eachence as both a defense attoniey 35charge if his is found guilty.

ab THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT PRECLUDE A DETERMINATION

OF A VOID JUDGMENT OR A VOID SENTENCE... THE ONLY THINGS REQUIRED IN

THIS CASE SUB JUDICE IS THE ABILITY TO READ AND WRITE AND OF COURSE TO

HAVE COMMON SENSE...

^ ACCORDINGLY ANY GOVERMENT EMPLOYEE COULD SURELY TELL BY

READING THE LAWS AND CASE LAWS i.e., (STARE DECISIS) THERE IS NO WAY IN

HELL MR. HARSH COULD HAVE RECEIVED A MANDATORY (4) YEARS PRISON

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO HIS JURY VERDICT FORMS OR PURSUANT TO OHIO

LAW... SEE THE ONE HUNDRED OR SO STARE DECISIS I HAVE PROVIDED

THROUGHOUT AND THE LAWS AND STATUES KATZ 6 117.3/ O.R.C. 2929.13 (G)(I)

O.R.C. 4511.19 (A)(I)(a) / O.R.C.. 2929.16 (a)(3) / R.C. 4511.19 (G)(I)(d)(i)

ACCORDINGLY ANY GOVERMENT EMPLOYEE CAN LOOK AT MR. HARSH

INDICTMENT i.e., (fatally flawed) AND SEE HE WAS NEVER INDICTED FOR A MULTI

FELONY PRIOR OFFENDER SPECIFICATION AS BUTLER COUNTY ASSISTANT

PROSECUTORS ARE IN TROUBLE RIGHT NOW FOR DOING ADDING CHARGES

NEVER INDICTED FOR, TOTALLY ILLEGAL... LOOK AT ALL THE NEWS PAPER

ARTICLES I HAVE ON THIS SUBJECT OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY JUDGES AND

PROSECUTORS IN BUTLER COUNTY.. " THE SAME DAMN THING HAPPEND TO ME"..

I MUST BE IMMEDIATELY RELEASED... THERE IS NO.. O.R.C. 2941.1413

SPECIFICATION FOR PRIOR MULTI FELONY OFFENDER SPECIFICATION ON MY

INDICTMENT WITH AND ELEMENTS OR EVEN STATUE LISTED.THAT MEANS IT

WAS NEVER SHOWN TO A GRAND JURY... JUDGMENT IS VOID USE COMMON

SENSE... I'LL SAY IT AGAIN JUDGMENT IS VOID..UNCHARGED OFFENSE...

SEE... STATE V. PAYNE 114 OHID ST 3D 502 2007 OHIO 4642 873 NE 2D 306

SEE STATE V SIMPKINS 117. OHIO ST 3D. 420 2008 OHIO 1197 884 NE 2D 568 @912

SEE...ROMITO V MAXWELL 1967 10 OHIO ST 2D 266, 268, 30 00 2D. 414,227, NE 2D

223CITING THE SAMEAS MR. HARSH'S CASE SUB JUDICE THE EFFECT OFA VOID

JUDGMENT ISA LEGAL NULLITYAND MUST PLACE THE PARTIES BACKIN THE SAME

POSITIONAS IF THERE HAD BEENNO VOID JUDGMENT WHATSOEVER . MR HARSH

HAS SERVED ALMOST FIVE YEARS ONA D. U.I THAT HE IS INNOCENT OFAND THAT

NO PRISONSENTENCE ISA UTHORIZED BYLAW..

^ C^12F^^i^ r111 A^^ -ChCk`S 41,e2k-::7tN fkrzs=- dt-a-,UE -iz^

o^

CQkiactl ^voW^^ IVrW^^

CowW w^ vssw,\

W^U` 4e,t..^

L,i -ctit,-_

,

ECk_A-WCez:1'

___

--Ot€RKOF;OtrR-r-------SJlPR EM E- C© U Ft.T-0 F-OH I0 --

---^^r'`^u-___w^^f^e

^llsCLsOIc,-^

A&^.^-l k_w^052•-413K-^Cu _ L

Ls'c-

h-4- l L Ll" h S -GA,_._

bk__..._^

_-- --- -- -

®^-_---_--.

S!r^Fiv^..--wu^t wEi--). .. __ ` _.-.._

0

-_l5

- -- -- -- --V

dluoLC^t^43_ _va. ._.4__J3°rL_-lt) a .__^?^^._L..^. -¢ 1 ^1.u621fi,

__- --___- -- ^a^--_ _ _ _-- -^-- ---------------------- - -

c4AW_,c -&v^ -^kwuW C-w^^w^,_ y u- . _

1)

EXPLINATION AS TO WHY THIS CASE IS OF GREATPUBLIC INTEREST, AND CONTAINS A SUBSTANTIAL

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

°HIS CASE SHOULD BE HEARD BECAUSE OF ALL THE LAWS, RULES OF PROCEDURES,

AND STATUTES THAT THE TRIAL COURT AND APPELLATE COURT VIOLATED TO GET

THE PARTIES TO THIS POINT, THIS CASE REPRESENTS THE LACK OF INTEGRITY,

THE COURTS NOW HAVE, OR RESPECT THEY HAVE FOR PRO SE INCARCERATED LITIGATES,

WHEN THE COURTS CAN TAKE ON THE ATTITUDE THAT IT CAN DELIBERATELY BREAK

THE STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS,BECAUSE THOSE BREAKING THE LAW ARE NOW ENJOYING

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY, AND CAN GRANT WHICHEVER PARTY THEY

CHOSE A POLITICIAL FAVOR, OPPOSE TO GOING SIMPLY BY THE LAW, AND THE

LEGISLATURES INTENT WHEN THE STATUTE, AND LAWS ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGIOUS.

THIS CASE QUESTIONS HOW CAN ANYONE EVER HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THIS OHIO

JUSTICE SYSTEM, JUDICIAL SYSTEM WHEN THE COURTS REFUSES TO ABIDE BY IT'S

OWN LAW? AND WHEN ITS ERRORS ARE POINTED OUT TO THE COURTS AND THE COU TS

STI,LL REFUSES TO CORRECT ITSELF, AND CONTINUE TO PRACTICE DISCRIMINATORY

^,,r,.AW IN VIOLATION OF THE APPELLANT'S 1ST AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS TO DUE PROCESS-AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW

CLAUSES, AS IF AGAIN THE COURTS IS ONLY RECOGNIZING THAT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

SHIELDS.THEM FROM ANY REAL CONSEQUENCES, AND THE LAW NOW HAS BECOME SECONDARY.

THIS CASE IS IMPORTANT TO ALL THOSE WHO STILL MIGHT BELIEVE THAT THERE

IS A GLIMMER OF JUSTICE WHICH STILL EXIST IN THIS STATE, ESPECIALLY AN INMATE

LITIGATER WHO HAS BEEN CLEARLY WRONGED DELIBERATELY BY THE COURTS, AND HIS WiD

COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL.

THIS CASE WOULD GO ALONG WAY IN RESTORING THE PUBLIC TRUST IN A SYSTEM WHICH

APPEARS TO BE BROKEN BEYOND REPAIR. (WITH ALL DUE REBPEET:^:.

3 m,uol lo- R^j (sv L-cf-^l<'tbo

^Ib^ Ir^Uvlf^^^c & ^C^ `^ ^(16t4 ^ ^}(U^J -fkL

HERE IN THE CASE AT BAR THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED TO THIS COURT AND

PRESENTED EVIDENCE ON (2) SEPERATE OCCASSIONS THAT THE TRIAL COURT

AND THE APPELLATE COURT HAS DELIBERATELY VIOLATED RULES OF CIVIL

PROCEDURES, RULES OF COURT, AND THE APPELLANT'S CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS BY NOT ONLY ALLOWING THE APPELLEE/DEFENDANT TO COMMIT FRAUD :.

UPON THE COURTS, DISi:EGARD THE RULES OF COURT, AND ORDERS OF THE COURT,

BUT FOR THOSE COURTS :EFUSING TO RULE UPON THE APPELLANT'S/PLAINTIFF'S

ACTUAL CLAIMS, OPPOSE TO THOSE CRETAED BY THE APPELLEE/DEFENDANT, AND

5 c^, . 5-^ ^ ^' z^^ U• ^bE^^ ^l^^si^ ^.,-E-t^.,^ ^^.®^+Lc7 Ct2 - ^ ooc9 - 03 - O^W

a oG^t - 03IQ6w^% ksI, A4c- 4vja^s

C^^lAPPELLANT SUBMITS THAT SUCH A NARROW MINDED CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE

APPELLATE COURT JUDGES IS AN ACT OF FRAUD, AND RIDICULOUSJO SAY THE LESSP.

IS CONTRARY TO LAW ON BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS, BECAUSE THE COURTS

A MAN WITH A 1&TH GRADE EDUCATION TO DEFEND HIMSELF AT TRIAL DOES NOT MEAN

THAT HE WAS AFFORDED THE TYPE OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE

LAW THAT THE 1ST AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS

GUARANTEES, AND ESPECIALLY NOT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.

BELOW ARE ALL THE LAWS/RULES/STATUTES/AND CONSTITUTIONS VIOLATED BY THE

TRIAL COURT AND APPELLATE COURT THUS FAR IN THESE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ORDER

IN WHICH THEY OCCURRED.

(FIRST) IN ORDER FOR THE APPELLANT TO DEMONSTRATE A DEPRIVATION OF

JUSTICE, THE APPELLANT APPARENTLY MUST DEFINE FOR THE COURT `i' L: LEGAL

( PAGE 9 )

NO JUDGE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSEA SENTENCE CONTRARY TO LAW..

EVEN THE AlA NDATORYPART OF MR. IIARSHSENTENCE IS NOT ALLOWED... AND

CONTRARY TO LAW SEE... COLEGROVE 175.. OHIO ST (a) 438 25 . 00 2D 447,195 NE 2D

811 SEE... STATE V. FISHER NO. 2010 OHIO 6238123 OHIO 5031 914 NE 2D 206

MR. HARSHRECEIVED A MALICIOUS MANDATORYSEVEN YEARS PRISON

SENTENCE BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT EXCEPT THE OLD BAT JUDGE ONEYS PLEA

DEAL OF (3) MONTHS. YOU HEARD ME RIGHT THE OLD BAT OFFERED ME THREE

MONTHS TO PLEAD GUILTY TO THE FATALLY FLAWED INDICTMENT.. .I TOLD HER

"HELL NO IAMINNOCENT "LOOK WHAT SHE DID TO ME... HIGHLYILLEGAL

SENTENCE: (NO SUBJECT MATTER JUISDICTION NO PERSONA JURISDICTION )

JUDGE ONEYS FAIL URE TO TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORYMANDATE

RENDERS THE JUDGMENTAND SENTENCE VOID.. PLUS MR HARSH WAS SENTENCED

TO UNCHARGED OFFENSE'S.. PLUS MR. HARSHINDICTMENT WAS ILLEGALLY

AMENDED CT#2 POSSESSION OFMARIJAUNA NEVER NOLLE PROSEQUI ON RECORD

IT DISAPPEARS AND REAPPE4RS BUTLER COUNTYMAJIC SHOW...ISSUE WRIT ...... :.....ILLEGAL SENTENCE DOCTRINE MEANS FORBIDDENBYLAW MR. HARSH HAS

NEVER HAD A FELONYINHIS LIFE TO THIS DAYAND NEVER FOUND GUILTYBYANYBODY OFA FELONY SEE... BLACKS LAWDICTIONARY 9TH ED. 2009 815 MR.HARSH'S SENTENCE AND CONVICTIONARE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH STATUES ISILLEGAL AND SUBJECT TO TO CORRECTIONAT ANYTIME SEE.. U.S. V.GRE9TWALKER C.A. 8 2002 285 F3D 729 OUTSIDE THE MAXIMUM IS ILLEGAL BEYONDJURYS VERDICT IS ILLEGAL BLAKELY V WASHINGTON APPRENDI EXRELWINSHIP. MR. fIARSH'S JURY VERDICT FORM BYLAWAND STARE DECISIS ISiYIISDEMEANOR D. U.I THAT IS NO PRISON TIME MR. IIARSHHAS NEVER HAD AFELONYINHIS LIFEAND IFHE DID THAT WOULD BEA FIRST TIME FELONYD. U.IOFPENDER AND THE LAW STATES NO PRISON TIMEALLOWED KATZ S 117.3 ANDAPPLICABLE STATUES... MR. IIARSHIS NOT ALLOWED BYLAW TO BE INPRISONMANIFEST TO ANYBODY WITH COMMONSENSE WHO HASA FIRST GRADEEDUCA!'ION OR BETTER SOME COMPETANT GOVERMENT EMPLOYEE MUST CORRECT.._ THERE WAS FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY THE CORRUPT GOVERMENT SO CALLEDJUDGEAND PROSECUTOR JUDGE ISSUED FRAUDULANT ORDERS STATING COUNT #2WAS REMOVED IN OPEN COURT ON THE RECORD WITH GOOD CA USE SHOWN.THIS ISA GAINBULLSHITITNEVER HAPPENED AND THERE IS NOT EVENA MOTION FILEDOR ANYRECORD OF TO REMOVE INFACT THE CORRUPT IDIOTS IN BUTLER COUNTYSAID IT WAS LEGALLYREMOVED BUT IT STILL REMAINS ONMYINDICTMENT..CRIMINAL ACTION IS REQUIRED... CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGES ARE NEEDED..THEN I WAS SENTENCED TO A MULTI FELONY OFFENDER SPECIFICATIONNEVERINDICTED FOR. THIS IS FORBIDDEN B Y LA W... THE RELIEFMUST BE GRANTEDIMMEDIATELY THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.. THIS IS BUTLER COUNTY (LITTLECHICAGO) IS WHAT THEY CALL IT ELSEWHERE.

IT IS WELL SETTLED IN OHIO LAW, THAT WHEN AN INDICTMENT FAILS

BY CHARGING ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE .STP.TU' ALL IS VOID...

IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED LAW IN ORIO, THAT WHEN A VERDICT FORM

DOES NOT LIST ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIMINAL STATUE ALL IS VOID

CRIM R, 7(B) PROVIDES THE NUMERICAL DEST_GNATION AMONG ALL THE

OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE STATUE HAVE TO BE LISTED OR ALL IS VOID...

STATE V. KALISH CITING THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION STANDARD...

MR. HARSH WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE OHIO LAWS TO BE INPRISONED

AND HIS SENTENCE AND CONVICTION MAY NOT STAND UNDER THE BANNER

OF JUSTICE... BECAUSE THE SUBJECT MMTER CAN NE«?'ER BE FmAIVED,AND MA,Y BE CHALLENGED AT ANYTIME OR AIUYWHERE... IT I;^ A PROC:.AMP_TION MADE BY THE COURT WHERE ALL IS VOSD. SEE PRATTS V. HURLEY

2004, 102 ohao st, 3d, 81 , S0en, nc, 2d 9.92, Cits.atg U.S. V. COTTON

(2002) 535 U.S. 625 122 s:t 1781,152,L.ED 2d, 860PRAYER FOR RELIEF

THE SENTENCE IMPOSED[UJ-PON MR. HPaRSH IS[N:O]T AUTHORIXED BYLAW, VIOLATES THE OHIO AND U.S. CONSTITUTCBIOIR.

THE LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CAN NEVER BE WAIVEDFROM MY POSITION I HAVE SERVED WELL OVER THE MAXIMUM TIME ALLOWEDBY LAW AND THE JURYS VERDICT.

THIS CAUSE IS PATENT FOR RELIEF WHICH MUST BE GRANTED... IAM GOING ON FIFTH YEAR WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED, THIS COURT HAS ADUTY AND OBLIGATION TO CORRECT THIS MANIFEST INJUSTICE IMMEDIATELY AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.. WITH THAT SAIDTHIS COURT SHOULD ISSUE AND IMMEDIATE RELEASE ORDER AND SUSTAIN TTHIS MOTION.

^D i k (^cc 011L.- 4^^^ tz^-2n 5.4-(^

ROBIN PIPERDEXID KASHMIKE GMOSER

ROBERT HARSH

315 HIGH ST.HAMILTON OHIO,

r 45011

a.Y4"t

! !^-, ?®-DO)L p-oLc-bA,hbi^ owD

cc,kptok^ s

v

cf

fl,05

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO ex rel.ROBERT HARSH, GO' CASE NO. CA2011-10-203j

retitioner, <,WV^--c aY 'J,^ ENTRY GRANTING MOTIONTO DISMISS

vs. 5\1PyA^a

^FQy-

^oMIKE SHEETS, wA

Respondent.

The above cause is before the court pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas

corpus filed by petitioner, Robert Harsh, on October 27, 2011; a motion to dismiss or in

the alternative motion for summary judgment filed by counsel for respondent, Mike

Sheets, Warden, on November 23, 2011; and a motion for immediate issuance of writ

filed by petitioner on December 5, 2011. Petitioner is an inmate incarcerated at Warren

Correctional Institution located in Lebanon, Warren County, Ohio; respondent is warde

of Warren Correctional Institution.

As a preliminary matter, R.C. 2725.03 requires that a petition for writ of habeas

corpus brought by an inmate of a correctional institution shall be brought only in a court

or before a judge of the county in which the institution is located. The statute provides

that "[a]ny writ issued by a court or judge of another county to an officer or person in

charge at the state institution to compel the production or discharge of an inmate there

is void."

As indicated above, petitioner is incarcerated at Warren Correctional Institution

located in Warren County, Ohio. The present petition for writ of habeas corpus was

filed in the Butler County Court of Appeals. Because Butler County and Warren Countyl

Butler CA2011-10-203

are both counties over which this court has jurisdiction, the court finds it has jurisdiction

to address the petition, although it probably should have been filed in the Warren

County Court of Appeals.

After a jury trial held in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas during Janu-

ary, 2007, petitioner was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated

("OVI"), driving under suspension, and a speed limit offense. In March, 2007, petitione

was sentenced to seven years of incarceration; four years for OVI and an additional

three years based upon a specification that within 20 years of committing the OVI

offense, he had previously been convicted of or pled guilty to five or more equivalent

offenses. Petitioner was sentenced to a concurrent six-month prison term for operating

a motor vehicle under suspension, and sentenced to court costs for the speed limit

offense.

Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentence to this court without success.

State v. Harsh (Feb. 4, 2008), Butler App. No. CA2007-03-083. Petitioner thereafter

unsuccessfully attempted to appeal this court's decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

State v. Harsh (June 18, 2008), Ohio S.Ct. Case No. 2008-0496. Petitioner has since

filed numerous petitions for post-conviction relief and habeas corpus in the Butler

County Court of Common Pleas, the Fourth District Court of Appeals and this court.

A petition for habeas corpus may normally be used only the challenge the juris-

diction of the sentencing court. Wireman v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (1988), 38 Ohi

St.3d 322. Habeas corpus is not available to challenge an allegedly faulty indictment.

State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 410. Habeas corpus will lie only

when there is no adequate legal remedy such as appeal or post-conviction reiief. Luna

v. Russell (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 561. Habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute

Butler CA2011-10-203

for other forms of action, such as direct appeal, post-conviction relief or mandamus.

Adams v. Humphries (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d 43.

The Butler County Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction to try and sentence

petitioner for the offenses indicated above. Further, although the petition, including

attachments, is approximately 80 pages long and rather disjointed, it does not appear t

raise any issues that were not or could not have been raised on direct appeal or by wa

of petition for post-conviction relief.

Based upon the foregoing, the court concludes that that the motion to dismiss is

with merit and the same is hereby GRANTED. The motion for immediate issuance of

writ is DENIED. This cause is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice, costs to petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

a^ +^nt N<6 S.,qc^^c &al-t-

14°" A. MON4-a_k4--C# (^ qA1ilE= 4o 5Ct1, qw!^, 4WVZ7

§^DULQO 'kZ> , UAU-PeC 54-fl4uS e a1 A^t No ®4^ r t4u-ouvQ{--5

I

. }.._ ........ .... .

NQ- _ cc^g^

44^• 1V\°l ^ 6Nf^^C ^lCl^sti^ /J^^d^1a91^

T

E®!H^^ES^ a <_$NIF^I i^V` ^^^tCVi•S .(^ ^^f ^ N^^ l^v ^^ •c

^^^Zt^ w ^Jnsc iL^^^ 6A^L. vy\ic^y oc-^^ &w