Background
Bruce Ford was convicted in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court of three counts of theft and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Evidence at trial indicated that some of the alleged thefts occurred in Huron and Stark counties, outside Cuyahoga County. The original appellate court (in 2026-Ohio-348) affirmed Ford’s convictions and sentence.
Ford then applied to reopen that appeal, claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction. Specifically, Ford argued that because two of the three theft charges involved crimes allegedly committed in other counties, Cuyahoga County lacked jurisdiction to try those charges. He further contended that without those convictions, insufficient evidence remained to support his pattern-of-corrupt-activity conviction.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Ford’s application to reopen. Under Ohio Revised Code §§ 2901.11 and 2901.12, a defendant may be tried in any county where one element of an offense occurred, provided the offenses constitute a “course of criminal conduct.” A course of criminal conduct exists when offenses are committed in furtherance of the same purpose or objective, or when they share the same modus operandi.
The court found that the three thefts at issue—all involving the theft of cigarettes from truck cargo holds over less than five months—shared a common modus operandi and purpose. Critically, one theft occurred in Cuyahoga County (from a delivery truck in Cleveland on June 1, 2022). Because at least one theft fell within Cuyahoga County jurisdiction and all thefts were part of a unified course of conduct, the county properly exercised jurisdiction over all charges.
The court also held that Ford waived any jurisdictional or venue objections by failing to raise them at trial. Under Ohio law, a defendant who is arraigned and does not object to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction submits to the court’s authority. Further, venue objections raised for the first time on appeal are deemed waived. Ford raised neither objection in the trial court, so appellate counsel’s failure to raise them on appeal did not constitute deficient performance.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio law permits consolidated prosecution of multiple offenses in a single county when they constitute a “course of criminal conduct” with shared characteristics (modus operandi) and common purpose, even if individual crimes occurred in different counties.
- Jurisdictional and venue challenges must be raised at trial or they are waived; defendants cannot raise them for the first time on appeal.
- To establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a defendant must show both deficient performance by counsel and a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for that deficiency.
- Evidence of shared modus operandi and purpose across multiple offenses strengthens the prosecution’s position that crimes constitute a unified course of conduct for jurisdictional purposes.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Ohio’s broad multi-county prosecution doctrine and the critical importance of raising jurisdictional objections at the trial-court level. Criminal defendants who fail to contest jurisdiction or venue early in proceedings will be unable to challenge them on appeal, foreclosing a potential avenue for relief. For prosecutors, the ruling confirms that crimes sharing common characteristics and purpose can be consolidated in a single venue, even across county lines, provided at least one element of one offense occurred in the trial county.
The decision also illustrates the difficulty defendants face in reopening appeals based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Because Ford himself failed to raise the jurisdictional issue at trial, appellate counsel’s omission of that argument could not have changed the outcome. The court’s analysis suggests that appellate counsel will rarely be found deficient for failing to preserve defenses that the defendant waived in the trial court.