Opinion ID: 6317036
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The pending motions

Text: {¶ 11} On November 16, 2021, Boler filed a motion asking us to order his discharge from prison. And on November 24, 2021, he filed a motion to extend the record on appeal to include the transcripts of his criminal trial. We deny both motions. {¶ 12} The motion for an order releasing Boler from confinement is based on the warden’s failure to file a merit brief in this appeal. If an appellee fails to file a merit brief, we “may accept the appellant’s statement of facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if the appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain reversal.” (Emphasis added.) S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B). For the reasons previously discussed, Boler is not entitled to judgment in his favor, notwithstanding the warden’s decision not to file a merit brief. {¶ 13} We also deny Boler’s motion to extend the record. Boler’s trial transcript is irrelevant to the sole issue we are deciding in this case, which is the application of res judicata to Boler’s petition. {¶ 14} Finally, we deny Boler’s two requests for oral argument. We have discretion to grant oral argument, and in exercising that discretion, we will 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-Ohio5339, 855 N.E.2d 444, ¶ 15 (decided under prior version of the rules). None of 4 January Term, 2022 those factors are present in this case. The law governing Boler’s claims is well established.