Case: Lowe v. Smith, Warden, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4541

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Date: October 2, 2025

Author: Per Curiam (unanimous: Kennedy, C.J., Fischer, DeWine, Brunner, Deters, Hawkins, and Shanahan, JJ.)

Introduction

In Lowe v. Smith, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirms a fundamental jurisdictional principle that has practical significance across Ohio’s criminal docket: a procedural irregularity in the assignment of a visiting judge, even if proven, does not deprive a court of subject-matter jurisdiction and thus does not render a judgment “void.” Instead, such irregularities make a judgment “voidable” and must be raised through ordinary legal remedies—typically objection at trial and direct appeal. The Court therefore holds that habeas corpus is unavailable to collaterally attack convictions on that basis.

The case arises from Dennis Ray Lowe’s 2002 Summit County convictions for aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder following a bench trial presided over by a visiting judge, Hon. Mary Cacioppo. More than two decades later, Lowe sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the visiting judge had no proper assignment from the Chief Justice, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction and rendering the convictions void. The Seventh District dismissed his petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), and Lowe appealed as of right.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirms the dismissal, clarifying two core points: (1) assignment defects do not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction and thus cannot support habeas relief; and (2) any such defect is waived if not timely raised by objection at trial or on direct appeal.

Summary of the Opinion

• Standard of review and habeas threshold: Reviewing de novo the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal of a habeas petition, the Court reiterates that habeas relief requires unlawful restraint and entitlement to immediate release, and is generally unavailable when other adequate remedies at law exist, unless the sentencing court patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction ({¶ 7}).
• Void vs. voidable: Even assuming the factual allegation that no assignment record exists for the visiting judge, any defect in assignment is a procedural irregularity that renders a judgment voidable, not void, because the Summit County Court of Common Pleas undeniably had subject-matter jurisdiction over felony prosecutions ({¶ 9}).
• Waiver: Lowe failed to object to the visiting judge’s authority at trial or raise the issue on direct appeal. Under Ohio law, such procedural challenges are waived if not timely raised ({¶ 10}).
• Disposition: Because Lowe cannot establish a patent lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and because he waived any assignment-related challenge, his habeas claim fails as a matter of law. The Seventh District’s dismissal is affirmed ({¶¶ 11–12}).

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Role in the Decision

• In re J.J., 2006-Ohio-5484 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) — Cornerstone authority. The Court quotes its syllabus rule: in a court with subject-matter jurisdiction, procedural irregularities in the transfer of a case to a visiting judge affect jurisdiction over the particular case, making any resulting judgment voidable, not void ({¶ 9}). In addition, In re J.J. holds that failure to timely object to a visiting judge’s authority waives the issue ({¶ 10}). This case supplies both pillars of the Court’s analysis: the void/voidable distinction and waiver by non-objection.
• State ex rel. Thompson v. Gonzales, 2024-Ohio-897 — Confirms continuity. The Court cites Thompson to underscore that improper assignment of a judge does not void a conviction ({¶ 9}). This modern citation demonstrates the Court’s consistent stance in recent years.
• State ex rel. Smith v. Triggs, 2023-Ohio-3098 — Reinforces the principle that assignment errors are not jurisdictional ({¶ 9}). Again, the Court aligns with recent caselaw refusing to void convictions based on visiting-judge assignment issues.
• State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 2012-Ohio-54 — Earlier precedent used to the same effect: improper assignment does not void a judgment, and the proper vehicle is ordinary appellate review ({¶ 9}).
• Smith v. Sheldon, 2019-Ohio-1677 (citing R.C. 2931.03) — Establishes that Ohio common pleas courts possess subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases. The Court uses this to confirm that the Summit County Court of Common Pleas had subject-matter jurisdiction over Lowe’s felony charges ({¶ 9}). Statutory references include:
  • R.C. 2931.03 — Jurisdiction of common pleas courts
  • R.C. 2901.02(C) — Aggravated murder is a felony
  • R.C. 2923.02(E)(1) — Attempted aggravated murder is a first-degree felony
• Leyman v. Bradshaw, 2016-Ohio-1093 — Clarifies that habeas lies only when the sentencing court patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction or when no adequate remedy existed in the ordinary course of law ({¶ 7}). Because any assignment irregularity is non-jurisdictional and could have been raised on direct appeal, habeas is not available.
• State ex rel. Spencer v. Forshey, 2023-Ohio-4568 — Provides the de novo standard for reviewing Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissals of habeas petitions and the pleading standard: dismissal is proper if no set of facts could entitle the petitioner to relief ({¶ 7}).
• State ex rel. Davis v. Turner, 2021-Ohio-1771 — Confirms that habeas requires unlawful restraint and entitlement to immediate release ({¶ 7}). Because Lowe challenges only a procedural irregularity that does not void the judgment, he cannot meet the immediate-release requirement.
• State v. Lowe, 2011-Ohio-3355 (9th Dist.) — Background only. The Ninth District previously applied res judicata to bar a similar assignment-authority challenge when Lowe sought a “final, appealable order.” Though the Supreme Court’s present decision does not rest on res judicata, this history underscores that Lowe had (and used) ordinary avenues to litigate assignment-related issues years ago ({¶ 5}).

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeds in two steps, each independently fatal to Lowe’s habeas claim.

1. Assignment irregularities do not negate subject-matter jurisdiction; they render judgments voidable, not void.

   The dispositive premise is undisputed: Ohio’s common pleas courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases (R.C. 2931.03; Smith v. Sheldon). That includes aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder (R.C. 2901.02(C); 2923.02(E)(1)). Lowe’s challenge centers instead on who presided—he claims that the visiting judge lacked a proper assignment from the Chief Justice. But under In re J.J., that sort of defect is a procedural irregularity affecting the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the particular case, not its subject-matter jurisdiction over the class of cases. The consequence is critical: a judgment produced in that posture is voidable, not void ({¶ 9}).

   The Court deliberately accepts Lowe’s factual allegation arguendo—that “no documentation assigning Judge Cacioppo” exists—yet holds that even then, his claim fails as a matter of law. This framing fits the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) posture: assuming all facts in the petition, the claim still does not entitle the petitioner to habeas relief because the defect is non-jurisdictional.

2. Waiver through failure to object or raise on direct appeal.

   Even voidable errors must be preserved. Under In re J.J., a party who believes a visiting judge lacks authority must object contemporaneously; failure to do so waives the procedural challenge ({¶ 10}). The Court notes that Lowe neither objected at trial nor raised the issue on direct appeal (his 2003 appeal challenged other issues). Because the alleged error was not preserved, it is unreviewable in this collateral habeas proceeding.

These two holdings work together to reinforce the core limits of habeas corpus in Ohio: habeas is not a vehicle for revisiting non-jurisdictional, correctable trial-level irregularities that could have been addressed through ordinary appellate processes (Leyman; {¶ 7}, {¶ 11}).

3) Impact and Implications

• For criminal defendants and defense counsel: The decision underscores the necessity of prompt, on-the-record objections to a visiting judge’s authority if there is any concern about assignment irregularities. Failure to object at the first opportunity will waive the issue. The appropriate forum for such challenges is the trial court and, if necessary, direct appeal—not habeas years later.
• For prosecutors: The ruling supports the finality of convictions against collateral attacks premised on visiting-judge assignment paperwork. Prosecutors can rely on In re J.J. and its progeny to argue that such claims are non-jurisdictional and waived if not preserved.
• For trial courts and court administrators: While the merits of the case do not turn on administrative compliance, courts should continue to maintain clear assignment records to minimize disputes. Still, the absence of a recorded assignment is not jurisdictional and will not void judgments.
• For habeas litigation: Lowe reinforces that habeas relief is limited to situations where the sentencing court patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Petitioners cannot convert a procedural assignment issue into a jurisdictional defect to avoid res judicata or bypass ordinary remedies.
• Continuity of doctrine: The Court’s unanimous per curiam opinion signals strong institutional consensus and continuity with past decisions (In re J.J., Thompson, Triggs, Bell). The rule is settled: errors in the assignment of judges are not grounds for voidness or habeas relief.

4) Complex Concepts Simplified

• Subject-matter jurisdiction vs. authority of a particular judge: Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court’s power to hear the type of case (e.g., felonies in common pleas court). It is conferred by law and cannot be waived. By contrast, whether a specific judge (e.g., a visiting judge) was properly assigned is an issue of the court’s jurisdiction over the particular case or the judge’s authority. Errors there are procedural, not jurisdictional.
• Void vs. voidable judgments: A void judgment arises when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; it can be attacked at any time, including via habeas. A voidable judgment is the product of procedural error by a court that otherwise had subject-matter jurisdiction; it must be challenged through timely objection and direct appeal.
• Habeas corpus limits: Habeas requires unlawful restraint and entitlement to immediate release and is generally unavailable when an adequate remedy at law existed (e.g., direct appeal), except when the sentencing court patently lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Procedural assignment flaws fall outside that narrow exception.
• Waiver by failure to object: Parties must raise assignment/authority objections as soon as they become apparent. Waiting until appeal—or years later in habeas—will typically forfeit the claim.
• Rules of Superintendence: These are administrative and case-management rules for Ohio courts. Even if a Superintendence rule was violated in the assignment process, such a violation does not eliminate subject-matter jurisdiction and does not, by itself, void a criminal judgment.

Conclusion

Lowe v. Smith reaffirms a clear and settled jurisdictional boundary in Ohio law. The Summit County Court of Common Pleas possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over Lowe’s felony charges. Any irregularity in the visiting judge’s assignment, even if proven, would be a procedural defect rendering the judgment voidable, not void. Such defects must be preserved by timely objection and pursued on direct appeal; they cannot be repackaged decades later as jurisdictional challenges in habeas corpus.

The decision’s practical message is straightforward: assignment challenges are non-jurisdictional and waivable, and habeas is not available to correct them. By unanimously affirming dismissal at the pleading stage, the Court promotes finality, channels procedural challenges into the proper appellate pathways, and provides clarity to litigants and courts on the limits of habeas corpus in Ohio.

• Improper visiting-judge assignment → voidable, not void.
• No patent lack of subject-matter jurisdiction → no habeas.
• Failure to object at trial or raise on direct appeal → waiver.