[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Furr

v. Ruehlman, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-481.]

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. 2023-OHIO-481

FURR, APPELLANT, v. RUEHLMAN, JUDGE, APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Furr v. Ruehlman, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-481.]

Mandamus—Relator’s complaint challenging trial court’s jurisdiction over his 

criminal case failed to state a viable claim for relief in mandamus against 

named respondent—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed.

(No. 2022-0574—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided February 21, 2023.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-220122.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Kono-Renaul Furr, appeals the First District Court of 

Appeals’ dismissal of his mandamus action. He has also filed motions for default 

judgment and summary judgment on the ground that appellee, Hamilton County 

Court of Common Pleas Judge Robert P. Ruehlman, did not file a merit brief in this 

appeal. We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment and deny Furr’s motions.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} Furr was a criminal defendant in State v. Furr, Hamilton C.P. No. 

B1601520. In that proceeding, he filed a motion to dismiss the case against him 

based on (1) his “reservation of rights” under Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) 

1-308 and (2) an argument that the proceedings against him violated 18 U.S.C. 241 

and 242 because they deprived him of his UCC rights.1 These arguments are 

characteristic of a “sovereign-citizen” defense. By invoking UCC 1-308, so-called 

sovereign citizens contend that they preserve their common-law rights and exempt 

themselves from federal and state law. See State v. Few, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 

25969, 2015-Ohio-2292, ¶ 5; see also DuBose v. Kasich, S.D.Ohio No. 2:11-CV00071, 2013 WL 164506, *3 (Jan. 15, 2013).

{¶ 3} In March 2022, Furr filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the 

First District. He sought a writ compelling Judge Ruehlman “to honor the motion 

to dismiss for the reservation of [his] rights.” (Capitalization deleted.) Furr asked 

the court of appeals to order Judge Ruehlman to “vacate the void judgment, [and]

discharge and release [him] from any obligation and/or confinement.” Judge 

Ruehlman filed a motion to dismiss Furr’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which 

Furr opposed.

{¶ 4} The court of appeals granted Judge Ruehlman’s motion to dismiss, 

concluding that to the extent Furr sought a writ ordering the trial court to rule on 

his motion to dismiss the criminal case against him, the matter was moot because 

Judge Ruehlman had already denied that motion. The court of appeals also

concluded that to the extent Furr filed his writ petition as a means of contesting

Judge Ruehlman’s denial of his motion to dismiss his criminal case, mandamus was 

1. R.C. 1301.308 codifies UCC 1-308. Subsection (A) of that statute provides: “A party that with 

explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a 

manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such 

words as ‘without prejudice,’ ‘under protest,’ or the like are sufficient.”
January Term, 2023

3

not the appropriate means by which to challenge Judge Ruehlman’s ruling. Furr 

appealed to this court as of right. See 166 Ohio St.3d 1506, 2022-Ohio-1624, 187 

N.E.3d 553.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motions for Default Judgment and Summary Judgment

{¶ 5} Furr timely filed his merit brief, but Judge Ruehlman did not file a 

merit brief or otherwise appear in this appeal. Furr has filed a motion for a “writ 

of default judgment,” asking this court to enter a “judgment by default” in his favor 

based on Judge Ruehlman’s failure to file a brief. He has also filed a separate 

motion for a “writ of summary judgment,” making the same argument. We deny 

both motions.

{¶ 6} Our rules of practice do not provide for entry of a default judgment in 

the appellant’s favor merely because of an appellee’s failure to file a brief. Rather, 

we may accept the appellant’s statement of facts and issues as correct and reverse 

the judgment below if the appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain reversal. 

S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B). Even if we were to accept Furr’s statement of facts and 

issues as correct, however, his brief does not provide a legitimate basis to reverse 

the court of appeals’ judgment.

{¶ 7} Nor is summary judgment appropriate. Civ.R. 56, which governs 

motions for summary judgment in civil proceedings, does not apply in appeals of 

right in this court. Bevins v. Richard, 144 Ohio St.3d 54, 2015-Ohio-2832, 40 

N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 6.

B. Furr’s Mandamus Claim

{¶ 8} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Furr must establish by clear and 

convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal 

duty on the part of Judge Ruehlman to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate 

remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Sands v. Coulson, 163 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

Ohio St.3d 275, 2021-Ohio-671, 169 N.E.3d 663, ¶ 6. We review de novo an order 

dismissing a mandamus complaint. Id.

{¶ 9} Furr contends that the criminal proceedings against him were void for 

lack of jurisdiction because he reserved his rights under the UCC not to be bound 

by any “unrevealed contract or commercial agreement” with the state of Ohio. If a 

court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction, mandamus relief could lie 

regardless of the availability of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the 

law. See State ex rel. Davis v. Janas, 160 Ohio St.3d 187, 2020-Ohio-1462, 155 

N.E.3d 822, ¶ 10.

{¶ 10} In this case, however, Furr’s argument is not cognizable in 

mandamus. Ohio courts of appeals have routinely rejected as baseless these sorts 

of sovereign-citizen challenges to a trial court’s jurisdiction in criminal cases. See,

e.g., Few, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25969, 2015-Ohio-2292, at ¶ 5-6; State v. 

Miller, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-04-019, 2018-Ohio-4258, ¶ 24-29; 

Garfield Hts. v. Foster, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102965, 2016-Ohio-2834, ¶ 9; State 

v. Gunnell, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-90, 2013-Ohio-3928, ¶ 6-7; State v. 

Farley, 5th Dist. Muskingum Nos. CT2013-0026 and CT2013-0029, 2013-Ohio5517, ¶ 13. The UCC “ ‘has no bearing on criminal subject matter jurisdiction.’ ” 

Id., quoting United States v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp.2d 602, 604 (D.Md.2005). And 

no “contract” between the criminal defendant and the prosecuting jurisdiction is 

necessary for a trial court to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See

State v. Matthews, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2015-CA-73, 2016-Ohio-5055, ¶ 3-6.

III. CONCLUSION

{¶ 11} For these reasons, Furr failed to state a valid claim for mandamus 

relief, and the court of appeals properly dismissed his complaint. We affirm the 

court of appeals’ judgment and deny Furr’s motions for default judgment and 

summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed.
January Term, 2023

5

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and 

BRUNNER, JJ., concur.

DETERS, J., not participating.

_________________

Kono-Renaul Furr, pro se.

_________________