State v. Jeffries

• Docket Number: 112789
• Decision Date: 21 December 2023
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAIKIA S. JEFFRIES, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2023-Ohio-4657

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MAIKIA S. JEFFRIES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 112789

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

December 21, 2023

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-16-610609-A

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Frank Romeo Zeleznikar, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Maikia S. Jeffries, pro se.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Maikia S. Jeffries ("Jeffries"), pro se, appeals the denial of his postconviction motion to void judgment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

2

Factual and Procedural History

{¶ 2} This is the third appeal filed by Jeffries. The first appeal was State v. Jeffries, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106889, 2018-Ohio-5039 ("Jeffries I "). On December 13, 2018, this court affirmed his convictions for two counts of kidnapping and two counts of gross sexual imposition. Jeffries filed a motion to reconsider our decision in Jeffries I. State v. Jeffries, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106889, 2019-Ohio-4255. There, this court denied Jeffries' motion to reopen his appeal as untimely. Most recently on March 16, 2023, Jeffries filed a motion with the trial court to void judgment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and lack of jurisdiction over his person. On April 25, 2023, the trial court denied his motion on the grounds it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Jeffries filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied on May 18, 2023. Now, Jeffries appeals and raises the following assignments of error for our review.

Assignment of Error No. 1

The trial court erred in refusing to consider motion to void the judgment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and over person to act, for failure to comply with the Ohio General Assembly statutory sentencing guidelines; denying appellant right to meaningful appellate review in violation of cruel and unusual punishment, due process, equal protection; Fifth Eighth, Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 2,9,16 of the Ohio Constitution

Assignment of Error No. 2

The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant and abused its discretion when it exceeded its authority when it failed to adhere to clearly established statutory requirements/mandates by imposing a sentence that is contrary to law, amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Fifth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendment

3

to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 2,9,16 of the Ohio Constitution.

Assignment of Error No. 3

The trial court erred to prejudice of appellant and

...