Court Opinion

ID: 9372381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 14:06:02.115013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:34.661993
License: Public Domain

[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

              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-CV-
00071, 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.”

                                                2
                                  January Term, 2023

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

                                          3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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-Ohio-
5517, ¶ 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.

                                          4
                               January Term, 2023

       KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and
BRUNNER, JJ., concur.
       DETERS, J., not participating.
                              _________________
       Kono-Renaul Furr, pro se.
                              _________________

                                        5