Furr v. Ruehlman, 2023 Ohio 481

Furr was a criminal defendant in State v. Furr (Hamilton C.P. No. B1601520) and moved to dismiss based on a claimed reservation of rights under UCC 1-308 and alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 (sovereign‑citizen theory).
After the trial judge denied the motion to dismiss, Furr filed a mandamus petition in the First District Court of Appeals asking the judge to "honor" the UCC reservation, vacate the judgment, and release him.
The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus complaint as moot to the extent it sought an order to rule (the motion had already been denied) and as improper to the extent it sought review of that denial.
Furr appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and also moved for default judgment and summary judgment because the appellee judge did not file a merit brief in the Supreme Court appeal.
The Ohio Supreme Court denied Furr’s procedural motions and affirmed the court of appeals, holding that sovereign‑citizen/UCC 1-308 challenges do not negate a trial court’s criminal jurisdiction and that Furr failed to plead a clear legal right or duty entitling him to mandamus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default or summary judgment should be entered because the appellee failed to file a brief	Furr: appellee’s failure to file a merit brief warrants a default judgment or summary judgment in his favor	Judge Ruehlman: Ohio Supreme Court rules do not authorize automatic default for a missing brief; the Court may accept appellant’s statement of facts only if the brief sustains reversal; Civ.R. 56 does not apply on appeal	Denied — no automatic default; the Court need not accept the brief as a basis for reversal and Civ.R. 56 is inapplicable on appeal
Whether mandamus lies to void criminal proceedings based on a UCC 1-308 reservation/sovereign‑citizen claim that the court lacked jurisdiction	Furr: his UCC 1-308 reservation preserved common‑law rights and meant the court lacked jurisdiction, so mandamus should compel dismissal/vacatur	Judge Ruehlman: sovereign‑citizen/UCC arguments are meritless; UCC does not affect criminal subject‑matter or personal jurisdiction; mandamus requires a clear right and duty which Furr has not shown	Dismissed — mandamus unavailable; UCC reservation does not defeat criminal jurisdiction and Furr failed to allege a clear legal right/duty

State ex rel. Sands v. Coulson, 169 N.E.3d 663 (Ohio 2021) (describes elements and standard for mandamus relief)
State ex rel. Davis v. Janas, 155 N.E.3d 822 (Ohio 2020) (mandamus may lie if a court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction)
Bevins v. Richard, 40 N.E.3d 1108 (Ohio 2015) (Civ.R. 56 does not apply in appeals of right to the Supreme Court)
United States v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp.2d 602 (D. Md. 2005) (UCC has no bearing on criminal subject‑matter jurisdiction)