Case Title: Appenzeller v. Miller

Citation: 2013-Ohio-3719

Docket Number: 2013-0087

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-09-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Appenzeller v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3719.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-3719 
APPENZELLER, APPELLANT, v. MILLER, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Appenzeller v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3719.] 
Habeas corpus—Proper removal of trial transcript from clerk’s office by 
petitioner’s own appellate counsel does not amount to break in chain of 
custody or denial of due process—Even if improper, removal of transcript 
does not constitute jurisdictional error of sentencing court and is therefore 
not cognizable in habeas corpus—Judgment denying writ affirmed. 
(No. 2013-0087—Submitted August 21, 2013—Decided September 4, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Belmont County, No. 12 BE 24,  
2012-Ohio-6093. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion 
of appellee, Belmont Correctional Institution Warden Michelle Miller, and 
dismissing the petition of appellant, Russell E. Appenzeller, for a writ of habeas 
corpus.  The local rule Appenzeller cites was not violated by his own counsel 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
when he checked out the transcript to prepare a brief on Appenzeller’s behalf, nor 
did such an action violate Appenzeller’s right to due process or equal protection.  
In addition, his petition does not sustain an action in habeas corpus. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} Appenzeller was indicted in the Lake County Common Pleas Court 
on 18 felony counts. In 2006, a jury convicted Appenzeller on all counts, and the 
trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 28 years in prison. Appenzeller 
appealed his conviction and sentence to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. 
The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for merging of 
certain offenses and resentencing.  State v. Appenzeller, 11th Dist. No. 2006-L-
258, 2008-Ohio-7005.  The trial court again sentenced Appenzeller to an 
aggregate term of 28 years in prison. The Eleventh District affirmed.  State v. 
Appenzeller, 11th Dist. No. 2009-L-027, 2009-Ohio-6384.  Appenzeller also filed 
a petition for postconviction relief which the trial court denied.  The Eleventh 
District affirmed. State v. Appenzeller, 11th Dist. No. 2007-L-175, 2008-Ohio-
6982. 
{¶ 3} Appenzeller, incarcerated in Belmont County, filed a petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus in the Seventh District Court of Appeals.  See R.C. 2725.03 
(county of incarceration has sole jurisdiction in habeas corpus)  His petition is 
based primarily on his contention that he was denied due process and equal 
protection when there was a break in the chain of custody of the trial transcript in 
his direct appeal. This alleged break occurred when Appenzeller’s own appellate 
attorney checked out the transcript to prepare his brief. 
Analysis 
{¶ 4} Appenzeller has moved for oral argument and for us to determine 
this appeal as if it had been originally filed in the Supreme Court.  As to oral 
argument, it is not required in a direct appeal.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.01; State ex rel. 
Motor Carrier Serv., Inc. v. Rankin, 135 Ohio St.3d 395, 2013-Ohio-1505, 987 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
N.E.2d 670, ¶ 16.  However, we have discretion to grant oral argument. Id.; 
S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.02(A).  In exercising the discretion we consider “whether the case 
involves a matter of great public importance, complex issues of law or fact, a 
substantial constitutional issue, or a conflict among courts of appeals.”  State ex 
rel. Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 111 Ohio St.3d 118, 2006-Ohio-5339, 
855 N.E.2d 444, ¶ 15, citing State ex rel. United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural 
Implement Workers of Am. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 108 Ohio St.3d 432, 
2006-Ohio-1327, 844 N.E.2d 335, ¶ 25-26.  Here, as will be seen, Appenzeller 
does not allege issues of public importance, substantial constitutional issues, or 
issues complex enough to require oral argument, and we therefore deny the 
request. 
{¶ 5} As to Appenzeller’s motion asking us to treat the case as if 
originally filed in this court, that plenary authority is generally exercised to avoid 
the need to remand a case for correction of an error.  Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 
323, 327, 744 N.E.2d 763 (2001), quoting State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn., 
Ohio Conference v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv., 88 Ohio St.3d 577, 579, 728 N.E.2d 
395 (2000) (“ ‘The court's plenary authority generally refers to our ability to 
address the merits of a writ case without the necessity of a remand if the court of 
appeals erred in some regard’ ”); see also State ex rel. Cleveland Police 
Patrolmen's Assn. v. Cleveland, 84 Ohio St.3d 310, 312, 703 N.E.2d 796 (1999).  
As we have no need to remand here, exercise of this authority is unnecessary.  We 
therefore proceed to determine the merits. 
{¶ 6} For the same reasons given by the Seventh District, we affirm. 
{¶ 7} Appenzeller makes a number of allegations about his prosecution 
and the behavior of his trial and appellate counsel.  However, the main basis of 
his petition is his allegation that during his direct appeal, the Eleventh District 
Court of Appeals lost custody and control of the transcript of his trial. He points 
to the docket of his appeal, which shows that the transcript was checked out by his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
appointed appellate counsel.  He asserts that this is a violation of Loc.R. 11 of the 
Eleventh District Court of Appeals and of his equal protection and due process 
rights. 
{¶ 8} Appenzeller’s petition was properly dismissed.  The relevant rule 
clearly allows for removal of the transcript from the clerk’s office for 14 days 
with permission.  See Loc.R. 11 of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals 
(“Permission for removal of the transcript may be granted upon application on a 
form provided and approved by the judges of this court”). 
{¶ 9} But no irregularity in the removal of the transcript could support 
Appenzeller’s right to the requested relief.  Appenzeller makes no argument 
regarding the jurisdiction of the court that sentenced him.  Habeas corpus will lie 
only to challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing court.  R.C. 2725.05.  The few 
situations in which habeas corpus may lie to correct a nonjurisdictional error are 
those where there is no adequate remedy at law.  State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 
73 Ohio St.3d 185, 186, 652 N.E.2d 746 (1995), citing State ex rel. Pirman v. 
Money, 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 593, 635 N.E.2d 26 (1994).  Here, Appenzeller could 
have moved for a renewed petition for postconviction relief to vindicate any 
legitimate claims against the Eleventh District Court of Appeals.  He thus had a 
remedy at law and has failed to state a proper claim in habeas corpus. 
{¶ 10} We affirm. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Russell E. Appenzeller, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
________________________