State v. Lewis

2025 Ohio 730

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 24 CAA 11 0095
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Lewis, 2025-Ohio-730.]

COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. : Hon. Robert G. Montgomery, J. -vs- : : KENNETH LEWIS : Case No. 24 CAA 11 0095 : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 20CR I 08 0555

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 5, 2025

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

KATHERYN L. MUNGER KENNETH LEWIS, PRO SE 145 North Union Street #785-946 Delaware, OH 43015 London Correctional Institution P.O. Box 69 London, OH 43140 King, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Kenneth Lewis, appeals the October 3, 2024

judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio, denying his

motion for leave to file a motion for postconviction relief to vacate or set aside judgment

of conviction and sentence and a motion for leave to file a new trial instanter. Plaintiff-

Appellee is the State of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 2} On September 18, 2020, the Delaware County Grand Jury indicted Lewis

on one count of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01 and two counts of

kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01, with accompanying firearm and repeat violent

offender specifications on each count. The charges arose from the robbery of a pawn

shop while employees were present.

{¶ 3} A jury trial commenced on January 12, 2021. The jury found Lewis guilty

on all counts, except for the firearm specifications. By judgment entry filed March 10,

2021, the trial court sentenced Lewis to an aggregate term of thirty-three to thirty-eight

and one-half years in prison.

{¶ 4} Lewis filed an appeal, arguing: (1) the trial court committed reversible error

by admitting two pieces of evidence used to link him to the crime charged: an improperly

authenticated CVS surveillance video containing footage of the suspect, and a surprise

witness; (2) the evidence that he was the person who committed the crimes was legally

insufficient as a matter of law; and (3) the trial court should have merged his aggravated

robbery offense with his kidnapping offenses. This court reviewed Lewis's arguments

and affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v. Lewis, 2022-Ohio-1850 (5th Dist.). {¶ 5} Lewis filed with this court numerous motions: to reopen his direct appeal,

for reconsideration, and for leave to seek delayed reconsideration, all denied. Lewis filed

with the Supreme Court of Ohio a motion for delayed appeal of his direct appeal which

was denied. State v. Lewis, 2023-Ohio-3670. Lewis also filed with this court a motion for

leave to file a delayed appeal, citing his appellate counsel's failure to appeal the trial

court's denial of his motion for a new trial. The motion was denied, as well as a

subsequent motion for reconsideration.

{¶ 6} On May 2, 2024, Lewis filed with the trial court a motion to vacate void

judgment, arguing: (1) the State did not prove he had a firearm or brandished a weapon

and thus the State failed to prove an element of the aggravated robbery offense; (2) the

State did not prove he restrained the liberty of another that created a substantial risk of

serious physical harm and thus the State failed to prove an element of the kidnapping

offenses; (3) the trial court violated his due process when it allowed a surprise witness to

be added to the State's witness list; (4) the trial court violated his constitutional rights by

allowing an unauthorized CVS video to be shown to the jury during trial; (5) the trial court

failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 in its determination of his sentence;

and (6) the trial court violated his constitutional rights by imposing maximum consecutive

sentences. By judgment entry filed May 24, 2024, the trial court treated the motion as a

petition for postconviction relief and denied it. The trial court found the claims raised were

raised or could have been raised by Lewis in his direct appeal and thus were barred by

the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court further found Lewis presented no new post-

trial evidence or other new information that might justify his effort to present his claims

three years after he filed his direct appeal. {¶ 7} Lewis filed an appeal, arguing: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when

it dismissed his postconviction petition for relief without granting an evidentiary hearing

and appointing an attorney; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his

postconviction petition based on res judicata without findings of facts and conclusions of

law; (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his postconviction petition

without the State's memorandum opposing his petition for relief; (4) the trial court abused

its discretion when it dismissed his postconviction petition based on res judicata for newly-

discovered evidence that dehors the record; (5) the trial court acted in a manner contrary

to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution therefore

his judgment should be rendered void for the aggravated robbery and kidnapping

offenses; (6) the trial court acted in a manner contrary to the due process clause of the

Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution when it imposed multiple

maximum and consecutive sentences therefore his judgment should be void and vacated;

(7) the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed unauthorized and unauthenticated

evidence to be admissible violating the Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights pursuant to

the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and (8) the trial court abused its

discretion when it allowed untimely discovery of a late witness testimony to be admissible,

violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This court reviewed Lewis's arguments and affirmed the trial court's decision. State v.

Lewis, 2024-Ohio-5271 (5th Dist.).

{¶ 8} On September 27, 2024, Lewis filed with the trial court a motion for leave to

file a motion for postconviction relief to vacate or set aside judgment of conviction and

sentence and a motion for leave to file a new trial instanter, arguing his trial counsel was

ineffective for: (1) failing to argue the State failed to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction by not including the charges of kidnapping in the initial complaint, affidavit of probable cause

or the arrest warrant; (2) failing to prepare a defense during trial or in his closing argument

and in his Crim.R.29 motion for acquittal, in where the State failed to prove the deadly

weapon element of the aggravated robbery and the element of substantial risk of serious

physical harm of the kidnapping; (3) failing to argue the merits of his pro se motion for

new trial; (4) failing to object to the imposition of multiple and maximum consecutive

sentences for a single episode of criminal conduct which violated the Double Jeopardy

Clause in conjunction with the Due Process Clause; (5) failing to move to suppress the

illegally obtained CVS video evidence in which the seizure and use of violated the Fourth

Amendment; (6) failing to argue that neither victims or witnesses made an out of court or

in court identification of him and the detectives' in court identification was unduly

suggestive; (7) failing to argue a discovery violation and request a continuance upon the

discovery of a surprise witness that was not on the witness list and failing to review the

detective interview and summary report of the surprise witness; (8) failing to object to

detective testimony to cell phone location and to challenge the DNA expert testimony and

to argue the State violated Crim.R. 16(k); (9) failing to object and argue the inaccurate

time stamp on the home surveillance video; and (10) failing to argue the charges were

allied offenses and should have merged. By judgment entry filed October 3, 2024, the

trial court denied the motion. The trial court found the motion was an untimely and

successive petition for postconviction relief. The trial court further found once again, the

claims raised were raised or could have been raised by Lewis in his direct appeal and

thus were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and he did not rely on any information

outside the record.

{¶ 9} Lewis filed an appeal with the following assignments of error: I

{¶ 10} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED

PLAIN ERROR IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO

CONSTITUTION WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER'S POST CONVICTION AS

UNTIMELY AND BASED ON RES JUDICATA."

II

{¶ 11} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED

PLAIN ERROR IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION WHEN IT DENIED

PETITIONER'S POST CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING."

III

{¶ 12} "TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH

AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE 1 OF THE

OHIO CONSTITUTION FOR FAILING TO ARGUE THAT THE TRIAL COURT LACKED

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AS THERE WAS NO CHARGES OF KIDNAPPING

IN THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT AND ARREST WARRANT."

IV

{¶ 13} "TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN VIOLATION OF SIXTH AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHEN HE FAILED TO PREPARE A DEFENSE DURING

TRIAL OR IN HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT AND HIS CRIMINAL RULE 29 MOTION FOR

ACQUITTAL, IN WHERE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE THE DEADLY WEAPON

ELEMENT OR AGGRAVATED ROBBERY AND THE ELEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL

RISK OF PHYSICAL HARM IN THE KIDNAPPING CHARGES." V

{¶ 14} "TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH

AMENDMENT AND ARTICLE 1 SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION WHEN

HE FAILED TO ARGUE THE MERITS OF HIS CLIENT PRO SE MOTION FOR A NEW

TRIAL UNDER OHIO CRIMINAL RULE 33 (A)."

VI

{¶ 15} "TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH

AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WHEN HE FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE

IMPOSITION OF MULTIPLE AND MAXIMUM CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR A

SINGLE EPISODE OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN WHICH VIOLATED THE FIFTH

AMENDMENT DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND ARTICLE 1 SECTION 16

OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."

VII

{¶ 16} "TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WHEN HE FAILED

TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED CVS VIDEO EVIDENCE IN

WHICH THE SEIZURE AND USE OF THIS VIDEO VIOLATED THE FOURTH

AMENDMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE

U.S. CONSTITUTION."

VIII

{¶ 17} "TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHEN HE FAILED TO PRESENT AN IDENTITY

DEFENSE AS NEITHER VICTIMS OR WITNESSES MADE AN OUT OF COURT OR IN COURT IDENTIFICATION POINTING TO THE DEFENDANT AS THE PERSON

COMMITTED THE OFFENSE AND ALSO FAILED TO ARGUE THAT THE DETECTIVES

IN COURT AND OUT OF COURT IDENTIFICATION WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE."

IX

{¶ 18} "TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH

AMENDMENT IN CONJUNCTION TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S.

CONSTITUTION WHEN HE FAILED TO REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE UPON THE

DISCOVERY VIOLATION OF A SURPRISE WITNESS AND COUNSEL ALSO FAILED

TO REVIEW THE DETECTIVES INTERVIEW AND SUMMARY REPORT OF THE

SURPRISE WITNESS WITH HIS CLIENT."

X

{¶ 19} TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH

AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WHEN HE FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE

DETECTIVES TESTIMONY TO CELL PHONE LOCATION AS HE WAS NOT AN

EXPERT WITNESS ON THE WITNESS LIST AND ALSO FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE

DNA EXPERT TESTIMONY BY AFFORDING AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT OR ADVICE

FROM SUCH EXPERT. COUNSEL FAILURE TO ARGUE THIS CRIMINAL RULE 16(K)

VIOLATION PROVED HIM TO BE PERFUNCTORY AND INEFFECTIVE."

XI

{¶ 20} "TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION WHEN HE FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE

INACCURATE TIME STAMP OF MARK JOHNSON HOME SURVEILLANCE VIDEO

THAT THE STATE RELIED ON AS EVIDENCE DURING THE TRIAL." XII

{¶ 21} "TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN VIOLATION OF SIXTH

AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WHEN HE FAILED TO ARGUE THAT

THE DEFENDANT'S CHARGES ARE ALLIED OFFENSES DUE TO MERGE

PURSUANT TO R.C. 2941.25(A) IN WHICH VIOLATED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION."

{¶ 22} In his second assignment of error, Lewis claims the trial court abused its

discretion and committed plain error when it denied his postconviction motion without

holding an evidentiary hearing. We disagree.

{¶ 23} A trial court's decision to deny a petition for postconviction relief without

holding an evidentiary hearing is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v.

Lichtenwalter, 2021-Ohio-1394 (5th Dist.). "Abuse of discretion" means an attitude that

is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio

St.3d 83, 87 (1985). Most instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are

simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary. AAAA

Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d

157, 161 (1990). An unreasonable decision is one backed by no sound reasoning

process which would support that decision. Id. "It is not enough that the reviewing court,

were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning process to be

persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a

contrary result." Id. "But 'the question whether a court of common pleas possesses

subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain an untimely petition for postconviction relief is a question of law, which appellate courts review de novo.'" State v. Apanovitch, 2018-Ohio-

4744, ¶ 24, quoting State v. Kane, 2017-Ohio-7838, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.).

{¶ 24} As explained in Lewis's prior appeal, R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) states a petition

for postconviction relief "shall be filed no later than three hundred sixty-five days after the

date on which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal of the

judgment of conviction." Lewis, 2024-Ohio-5271, at ¶ 18 (5th Dist.). Here, the transcripts

were filed in Lewis's direct appeal on August 30, 2021. His latest postconviction motion

was filed more than three years later. Under R.C. 2953.23(A), "a court may not entertain

a petition filed after the expiration of the period prescribed . . . or a second petition or

successive petitions for similar relief" unless:

(1) Both of the following apply:

(a) Either the petitioner shows that the petitioner was unavoidably

prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely to

present the claim for relief, or, subsequent to the period prescribed in

division (A)(2) of section 2953.21 of the Revised Code or to the filing of an

earlier petition, the United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal

or state right that applies retroactively to persons in the petitioner's situation,

and the petition asserts a claim based on that right.

(b) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but

for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found

the petitioner guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted or,

if the claim challenges a sentence of death that, but for constitutional error at the sentencing hearing, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

petitioner eligible for the death sentence.

{¶ 25} Lewis's motion alleged in part ineffective assistance of counsel. Before a

petitioner can be granted a hearing in proceedings for postconviction relief upon a claim

of ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner bears the initial burden to submit

evidentiary quality material containing sufficient operative facts that demonstrate a

substantial violation of any of trial counsel's essential duties in addition to prejudice arising

from that ineffectiveness. State v. Church, 2018-Ohio-368 (5th Dist.), citing Calhoun.

Further, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the proper basis for dismissing a petition

for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing includes the failure of the

petitioner to set forth specific operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief.

State v. Lentz, 70 Ohio St.3d 527 (1994).

{¶ 26} In his motion, Lewis once again failed to provide any reason for the delay in

filing, and he failed to satisfy the statutory exceptions to the untimely filing under R.C.

2953.23(A)(1). As found by the trial court in its October 3, 2024 judgment entry:

The defendant does not contend that he was unavoidably prevented

from discovering the key facts that underlie his latest filing for postconviction

relief and his new-trial request, let alone explain what may have prevented

him from discovering those facts. In addition, he does not explain how he

proposes to show at any hearing that, but for the alleged errors that he cites,

he would not have been found guilty. {¶ 27} We agree with the trial court's analysis. A petitioner's failure to satisfy the

R.C. 2953.23(A) requirements deprives a trial court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits

of an untimely or successive postconviction petition. Apanovitch, 2018-Ohio-4744, at ¶

36; Lewis, 2024-Ohio-5271, at ¶ 20 (5th Dist.).

{¶ 28} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in denying Lewis's motion

without a hearing.

{¶ 29} Assignment of Error II is denied.

I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII

{¶ 30} In his first assignment of error, Lewis claims the trial court abused its

discretion and committed plain error when it denied his motion as untimely and based on

res judicata. We disagree.

{¶ 31} In his third through twelfth assignments of error, Lewis claims his trial

counsel was ineffective for various reasons.

{¶ 32} When a trial court denies a petition by operation of law, e.g., by application

of the doctrine of res judicata, this court's review is de novo. State v. Butcher, 2014-Ohio-

4302, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.).

{¶ 33} As for the untimely issue, Lewis failed to meet the statutory exceptions to

the untimely filing under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1); therefore, the trial court did not err in finding

the motion was untimely.

{¶ 34} A petition for postconviction relief is intended as a means to reach

constitutional issues that would otherwise be impossible to reach because the evidence

supporting those issues is not contained in the record of the petitioner's criminal

conviction. State v. Smith, 2017-Ohio-2616, ¶ 13, citing State v. Murphy, 2000 WL

1877526 (10th Dist. Dec. 26, 2000). A petition for postconviction relief is a civil collateral attack on a criminal judgment, not an appeal of that judgment. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d

at 281. It does not provide a petitioner a second opportunity to litigate the conviction.

State v. Lewis, 2008-Ohio-3113, ¶ 8 (5th Dist.).

{¶ 35} Additionally, as held by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Perry, 10

Ohio St.2d 175 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus:

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars

the convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except

an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due

process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the

trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that

judgment.

See also Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995).

{¶ 36} A petition for postconviction relief may defeat the res judicata bar only if its

claims are based on evidence de hors the record. State v. McNeill, 137 Ohio App.3d 34,

40 (9th Dist. 2000), citing State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982). "[T]o avoid the

preclusive effect of res judicata, postconviction relief claims must be 'based on evidence

outside of the original record that existed during direct appellate proceedings.'" State v.

Meyerson, 2023-Ohio-708, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Bulls, 2015-Ohio-5094, ¶ 9

(9th Dist.). The petitioner "may file a supporting affidavit and other documentary evidence

in support of the claim for relief." R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(b). "[E]vidence presented outside

the record must meet some threshold standard of cogency; otherwise it would be too easy to defeat the holding of Perry by simply attaching as exhibits evidence which is only

marginally significant and does not advance the petitioner's claim beyond mere

hypothesis and a desire for further discovery." State v. Coleman, 1993 WL 74756, *7 (1st

Dist. Mar. 17, 1993). To overcome a bar under res judicata, a petitioner "must produce

new evidence that would render the judgment void or voidable and must also show that

he could not have appealed the claim based upon information contained in the original

record." State v. Nemchik, 2000 WL 254908, *1 (9th Dist. Mar. 8, 2000); see State v.

Cox, 2019-Ohio-521, ¶ 11 (5th Dist.).

{¶ 37} In his motion, Lewis argued his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing

to argue that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as there was no charges of

kidnapping in the criminal complaint, affidavit and arrest warrant; (2) failing to prepare a

defense during trial or in his closing argument and his criminal rule 29 motion for acquittal,

in where the state failed to prove the deadly weapon element or aggravated robbery and

the element of substantial risk of physical harm in the kidnapping charges; (3) failing to

argue the merits of his pro se motion for a new trial; (4) failing to object to the imposition

of multiple and maximum consecutive sentences for a single episode of criminal conduct;

(5) failing to move to suppress the illegally obtained CVS video evidence; (6) failing to

present an identity defense as neither victims or witnesses made an out of court or in

court identification pointing to him as the person who committed the offense and failing to

argue that the detectives' in court and out of court identification was unduly suggestive;

(7) failing to request a continuance upon a discovery violation of a surprise witness and

failing to review the detectives' interview and summary report of the surprise witness with

him; (8) failing to object to the detectives' testimony to cell phone location and failing to

challenge the DNA expert testimony; (9) failing to object to the inaccurate time stamp of a home surveillance video that the state relied on as evidence during the trial; and (10)

failing to argue that his charges were allied offenses subject to merger.

{¶ 38} Lewis failed to rely on any information outside the record that would support

his claims. The documents attached to Lewis's motion were available to him before trial;

he was not unavoidably prevented from seeing them. Further, none of the documents

established a substantial violation of any of trial counsel's essential duties in addition to

prejudice arising from that ineffectiveness. Church; Calhoun. The issues raised by Lewis

in his motion and in the instant appeal are issues which were either cognizable upon

direct appeal from his judgment of conviction and sentence and/or were raised in his first

petition for postconviction relief and subsequent appeal. Res judicata prohibits a

petitioner from "re-packaging" evidence or issues that either were, or could have been,

raised in the context of the petitioner's trial or direct appeal. State v. Lawson, 103 Ohio

App.3d 307, 315 (12th Dist. 1995). Lewis's most recent motion was merely repackaging

of the same arguments he has raised before.

{¶ 39} On the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction can be

challenged at any time. State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 75 (1998).

"Subject-matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon

its merits." Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 87 (1972). The current version of

Article IV, Section 4(B) of the Ohio Constitution states, "[t]he courts of common pleas and

divisions thereof shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters . . . as

may be provided by law." As stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio: "This court has long

held that the court of common pleas is a court of general jurisdiction, with subject-matter

jurisdiction that extends to 'all matters at law and in equity that are not denied to it.'" Bank

of America, N.A. v. Kuchta, 2014-Ohio-4275, ¶ 20, quoting Saxton v. Seiberling, 48 Ohio St. 554, 558–559 (1891). "The court of common pleas has original jurisdiction of all

crimes and offenses, except in cases of minor offenses the exclusive jurisdiction of which

is vested in courts inferior to the court of common pleas." R.C. 2931.03. The kidnapping

charges were included in the Delaware County Grand Jury's September 18, 2020

indictment; the offenses contained in the indictment occurred in Delaware County. Foston

v. Maxwell, 177 Ohio St. 74, 76. The trial court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction in

this case.

{¶ 40} The trial court properly found Lewis's claims based on ineffective assistance

of counsel were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

{¶ 41} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in denying Lewis's motion

under res judicata.

{¶ 42} Assignments of Error I and III through XII are denied.

{¶ 43} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio is

hereby affirmed.

By King, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Montgomery, J. concur.