Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer
Ohio Case Law

Lowe v. Smith, 2025-Ohio-4541

Case Information

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Date: 2025-10-02
Citation: 2025-Ohio-4541
Read the Opinion

Summary

Summary: The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition filed by an inmate who alleged that his conviction was void due to a procedural irregularity in the assignment of a visiting judge, holding that any such irregularity rendered the judgment voidable, not void, and that the inmate waived the issue by not raising it earlier.

Key Holdings

  • Procedural irregularities in the assignment of a visiting judge render a judgment voidable not void
  • A court of common pleas has subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases including aggravated murder
  • Failure to timely object to judicial assignment waives the procedural error
  • Habeas corpus is not available when the sentencing court had jurisdiction and the petitioner had adequate legal remedies

More Information

In 2002, the Appellant was tried and convicted of aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder in Summit County. Though Judge Mary Spicer initially handled pretrial matters, Judge Mary Cacioppo, a visiting judge, presided over the bench trial and sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment. The judgment stated that Judge Cacioppo was sitting by assignment. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and subsequent postconviction motions and appeals were denied or found barred by res judicata.

In 2024, the Appellant filed a habeas corpus petition in the Seventh District, claiming the judgment was void because there was no record that Judge Cacioppo had been properly assigned to the case. The appellate court granted the warden’s motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), finding that even if the assignment was procedurally defective, it did not render the conviction void.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed. The Court reiterated that procedural irregularities in judicial assignments do not affect a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore do not void a conviction. As long as the trial court had jurisdiction over the type of offense—and common pleas courts do have jurisdiction over felony cases—the resulting judgment is voidable, not void.

Additionally, the Court found that the Appellant had waived the issue by not objecting during trial or raising the matter on direct appeal. The habeas petition failed to demonstrate that the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction, nor did it assert that the petitioner lacked other legal remedies. Thus, the Court concluded that the habeas petition was properly dismissed.