BAUMGARTNER, APPELLANT, v. DUFFEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
No. 2008-2057
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted March 11, 2009—Decided March 24, 2009
121 Ohio St.3d 356, 2009-Ohio-1218
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.
David C. Comstock Jr., and Ronald E. Slipski, for relator.
John B. Juhasz, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
{1 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of appellant, Elsebeth Baumgartner, challenging the revocation of her bail pending appeal. Baumgartner‘s bail was revoked when she violated a condition by filing a lawsuit in a federal district court without the express written permission of the common pleas court judge.
{1 2} Baumgartner claims that the court of appeals erred in dismissing her petition because habeas corpus is the proper vehicle to challenge excessive bail after a judgment of conviction and because one of the conditions of bail—that she file no lawsuit in any court against any public official without the express written permission of the common pleas court judge—was excessive. See, e.g., State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 594, 635 N.E.2d 26; Mayer v. Bristow (2000), 91 Ohio St.3d 3, 19-20, 740 N.E.2d 656 (no authority “purports to authorize a single state common pleas court to control the processes of every state and federal court throughout the United States“); Ex Parte Hull (1941), 312 U.S. 546, 549, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (“the state and its officers may not abridge or impair petitioner‘s right to apply to a federal court“).
{1 3} Even if her claim had merit, dismissal was still warranted. Baumgartner was declared a vexatious litigator in 2004. See http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov./Clerk/vexatious. Thus, she could not “institute legal proceedings in a court of appeals * * * without first obtaining leave of the court of appeals to proceed” in accordance with the vexatious-litigator statute.
{1 4} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Although the court of appeals did not rely on this rationale to dismiss the petition, we will not reverse a correct judgment even if some or all of the lower court‘s rationale was erroneous. Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 12.1
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur.
LANZINGER, J., not participating.
Sandra J. Finucane, for appellant.
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.