Dowell v. Maxwell, 37871
| Decision Date | 13 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 37871,37871 |
| Citation | 189 N.E.2d 95,174 Ohio St. 289 |
| Parties | , 22 O.O.2d 343 DOWELL v. MAXWELL, Warden. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Lovanous Dowell, in pro. per.
Mark McElroy, Atty. Gen., and John J. Connors, Jr., Columbus, for respondent.
The petitioner urges that he was deprived of his constitutional rights on the ground that the officer who filed the complaint and the Municipal Court charged him with murder in the first degree when neither had the right or power to do so.
Neither the complaint of the arresting officer nor the Municipal Court sets the degree or actually determines the charge on which an accused is prosecuted. This is solely the function of the grand jury which after hearing evidence determines the crime with which an accused is to be charged and on which he is to be tried.
An accused, under Section 2937.02, Revised Code, is, after he is arrested, entitled to be informed of the charge made against him, and the court under such section examines the merits of the charge to determine only whether grounds exist to bind the accused over to the grand jury. This is the purpose of the complaint and preliminary hearing. 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law p. 870, § 337.
The validity of an accused's conviction is dependent on the jurisdiction of the trial court. The jurisdiction of the court is invoked by the return of a valid indictment and is not based on the process by which an accused is taken into custody or the findings made on the preliminary examination. Any defect or irregularity in either the arrest or preliminary examination does not affect the validity of the accused's conviction. Brown v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St. 29, 186 N.E.2d 612; Norton v. Green, Supt., 173 Ohio St., 531 184 N.E.2d 401; and Doughty v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St., 407, 183 N.E.2d 368. Here, the trial court had jurisdiction over the crime and of the person of the petitioner by the return of the indictment against him. There is no validity to petitioner's argument in this respect.
The second ground petitioner urges as entitling him to release is that the court, by setting aside and vacating his original sentence after overruling his motion for a new trial, lost its jurisdiction over him, and that the resentencing by the court after overruling the motion for a new trial was void.
The filing of a motion for a new trial in a criminal case does not, as a matter of law, operate to suspend the final judgment or sentence during the period the motion is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dell
...is generally accepted that an indictment by the grand jury renders any defects in the preliminary hearing moot Dowell v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 289, 290-291, 189 N.E.2d 95 (1963) ; State v. Davis , 5th Dist. Richland No. 2019 CA 0112, 2020-Ohio-3617, 2020 WL 3639556, ¶ 16 citing State v. Was......
-
Paradis v. State
...of jurisdiction over both the offense and the person there is and can be no prosecution." (Emphasis added.)); Dowell v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 289, 189 N.E.2d 95, 96 (1963); Green v. State, 230 Ind. 400, 103 N.E.2d 429, 430 (1952), cert. denied 343 U.S. 987, 72 S.Ct. 1084, 96 L.Ed. 1374 In t......
-
State v. Dell
... ... renders any defects in the preliminary hearing moot ... Dowell v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 289, 290-291, 189 ... N.E.2d 95(1963); State v. Davis, 5th Dist ... ...
-
State v. Zarlengo
...State v. Thomas , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 18 MA 0132, 2020-Ohio-3637, 2020 WL 3790553, ¶ 48-50, citing Dowell v. Maxwell , 174 Ohio St. 289, 290, 189 N.E.2d 95 (1963) ("The jurisdiction of the court is invoked by the return of a valid indictment and is not based on * * * the findings made on......