[Cite as Appenzeller v. Miller , 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio-3719.]

A PPENZELLER , A PPELLANT , v. M ILLER , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE . [Cite as Appenzeller v. Miller , 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio-3719.] Habeas corpus—Proper removal of tria l transcript from clerk’s office by petitioner’s own appellate c ounsel does not amount to break in chain of custody or denial of due process—Even if improper, removal of transcript does not constitute jurisdic tional 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.)
A PPEAL 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 cite s was not violated by his own counsel when he checked out the transcript to pr epare a brief on Appenzeller’s behalf, nor did such an action violate Appenzeller’s ri ght to due process or equal protection. In addition, his petition does not sust ain 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 convi cted Appenzeller on all counts, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregat e term of 28 years in prison. Appenzeller appealed his conviction and sentence to th e 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. Lake No.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 2006-L-258, 2008-Ohio-7005. The trial court ag ain sentenced Appenzeller to an aggregate term of 28 years in prison. The Eleventh Dist rict affirmed. State v. Appenzeller , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2009-L-027, 200 9-Ohio-6384. Appenzeller also filed a petition for postconvic tion relief, which the tr ial court denied. The
Eleventh District affirmed. State v. Appenzeller , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-175,
2008-Ohio-6982. {¶ 3} Appenzeller, incarcerated in Be lmont County, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Seve nth District Court of Appeals. See R.C. 2725.03 (county of incarceration has sole jurisdicti on 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 oc curred when Appenzeller’s own appellate attorney checked out the transcript to prepare his brief. Analysis {¶ 4} Appenzeller has moved for oral ar gument 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 di rect 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 N.E.2d 670, ¶ 16. However, we have discretion to grant oral argument. Id. ; S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.02(A). In exercising th e discretion, we consider “whether the case involves a matter of great public importa nce, 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, orJanuary Term, 2013

3 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 author ity 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
Patrolme’s Assn. v. Cleveland , 84 Ohio St.3d 310, 312, 703 N.E.2d 796 (1999). As we have no need to remand here, exerci se of this authority is unnecessary. We therefore proceed to determine the merits. {¶ 6} For the same reasons given by th e Seventh District, we affirm. {¶ 7} Appenzeller makes a number of a llegations about his prosecution
and the behavior of his tria l and appellate counsel. Ho wever, 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 th at the transcript was checked out by his 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-protec tion 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 transcri pt may be granted upon application on a form provided and approved by the judges of this court”).S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 9} But no irregularity in the remova l of the transcript could support Appenzeller’s right to the requested re lief. 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 li e to correct a nonjurisdictional error are those in which 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 rene wed 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 fa iled to state a proper claim in habeas

corpus. {¶ 10} We affirm. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

____________________ Russell E. Appenz eller, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

________________________