State v. Huelsman , 2023 Ohio 649 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Huelsman, 2023-Ohio-649.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MIAMI COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Appellee : C.A. No. 2022-CA-21
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2022 TRD 03920
:
EDWARD B. HUELSMAN : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
:
Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on March 3, 2023
...........
JONATHAN B. FREEMAN, Attorney for Appellee, City of Tipp City
EDWARD B. HUELSMAN, Appellant, Pro Se
.............
WELBAUM, P.J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on the pro se appeal of Defendant-Appellant,
Edward B. Huelsman, from his conviction on a charge of driving without a license, a first-
degree misdemeanor. Huelsman has submitted a brief that fails to conform in any
fashion with App.R. 16(A) and, in fact, appears to be in the nature of a civil complaint
-2-
brought against the prosecutor. From what we can glean from the brief, Huelsman
appears to be contending that the trial court lacked personal and subject matter
jurisdiction over him because he is a sovereign citizen and is not subject to the laws of
Ohio.
{¶ 2} For the reasons discussed below, Huelsman’s arguments are without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
I. Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 3} On June 6, 2022, Officer Phillip Osting of the Tipp City, Ohio Police
Department filed a Uniform Traffic Ticket (complaint) in Miami County Municipal Court,
charging Huelsman with driving under suspension, a violation of R.C. 4510.11. On June
8, 2022, Huelsman filed an answer, stating that “I choose not to contract with you.” This
was written on a copy of the traffic ticket and bore the following notarized signature,
“UCC1-207 Edward B Huelsman.”
{¶ 4} At the arraignment on June 14, 2022, Huelsman pled not guilty and was given
an own recognizance bond. The case was assigned for a pretrial conference to be held
on July 14, 2022, and was then scheduled for trial on August 11, 2022. On August 9,
2022, Huelsman filed a Demand for a Verified Complaint of Injured Party or Motion to
Quash Defective Citation for Lack of Jurisdiction, if Verified Complaint is Not Timely Filed
(“Demand”). The gist of the Demand was that the Uniform Traffic Ticket filed in court
was insufficient to constitute a verified complaint, which Huelsman alleged must be filed.
In a separate document, Huelsman announced his renunciation of citizenship in the
-3-
United States and its “government, a corporation.” Act of Expatriation and Oath of
Allegiance (Aug. 9. 2022), p. 1.
{¶ 5} On August 10, 2022, the State responded to Huelsman’s Demand, noting
that the court had jurisdiction over the offense, which was committed in Miami County.
The State further stressed that courts had rejected “sovereign citizen” defenses as
frivolous, and that Traf.R. 3(A) designated the Ohio Uniform Traffic Ticket as the
complaint and summons, meaning no verification was required. The trial court denied
Huelsman’s motion on August 11, 2022, and also tried the case on that date.
{¶ 6} The court found Huelsman guilty of driving under suspension, imposed a fine
of $25 and costs, and sentenced Huelsman to 10 days in jail. On August 15, 2022,
Huelsman filed what he called a “motion for appeal,” which we construe as a notice of
appeal. We note that Huelsman failed to provide a copy of the trial transcript for
purposes of this appeal.
II. Discussion
{¶ 7} As noted, Huelsman’s brief failed to comply with App.R. 16(A), which
contains various requirements for briefs, including: “(3) A statement of the assignments
of error presented for review, with reference to the place in the record where each error
is reflected”; “(4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references to the
assignments of error to which each issue relates”; “(6) A statement of facts relevant to the
assignments of error presented for review, with appropriate references to the record in
accordance with division (D) of this rule”; and “(7) An argument containing the contentions
-4-
of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the
reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts
of the record on which appellant relies.” Where an appellant fails to comply with these
requirements, App.R. 12(A)(2) allows us to disregard a party’s assignments of error.
E.g., State v. Mize, 2022-Ohio-3163, 195 N.E.3d 574, ¶ 77 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 8} Of course, here, Huelsman has not even asserted an assignment of error; he
has filed what appears to be a complaint against the State. In responding to Huelsman’s
brief, the State interprets the brief as raising the issue that as a sovereign citizen,
Huelsman is beyond the State’s jurisdiction, both personally and in terms of subject matter
jurisdiction. We agree, and even if we were to consider Huelsman’s arguments, they are
without merit.
{¶ 9} We have rejected similar arguments on numerous occasions. In Village of
St. Paris v. Galluzzo, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2014-CA-4, 2014-Ohio-3260, we noted
that:
Generally, all Ohio courts have jurisdiction over violations of Ohio law
occurring in Ohio. See R.C. 2901.11(A). More to the point, municipal
courts have jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses.
Pursuant to R.C.1901.20, “The municipal court has jurisdiction of the
violation of any ordinance of any municipal corporation within its territory
* * * and of the violation of any misdemeanor committed within the limits of
its territory.”
Id. at ¶ 11.
-5-
{¶ 10} Under R.C. 1901.02(B), “The Miami county municipal court has jurisdiction
within Miami county and within the part of the municipal corporation of Bradford that is
located in Darke county.” The traffic violation involved in this case occurred in Tipp City,
which is located within Miami County. See R.C. 1901.021(F)(“[a]t least one of the judges
of the Miami county municipal court shall sit within the municipal corporations of Troy,
Piqua, and Tipp City, and the judges may sit in other incorporated areas of Miami county”).
{¶ 11} The violation involved here was of R.C. 4510.11(A), which prohibits persons
whose drivers’ licenses have been suspended from operating “any motor vehicle upon
the public roads and highways or upon any public or private property used by the public
for purposes of vehicular travel or parking within this state during the period of suspension
* * *.” This is a misdemeanor of the first degree, over which the municipal court has
jurisdiction. See R.C. 4510.11(D)(1) and R.C. 1901.20. Thus, the trial court had subject
matter jurisdiction over this case.
{¶ 12} In the trial court, Huelsman argued that the traffic ticket issued to him and
filed in court was defective because it was not a “verified complaint.” This was a frivolous
argument, as “[i]n traffic cases, the complaint and summons shall be the ‘Ohio Uniform
Traffic Ticket’ * * *.” Traf.R. 3(A). This is what was filed here. Furthermore, the
authority Huelsman cited as authority for a “verified complaint” was taken from California
law, which obviously does not apply here. See Demand, p. 2-3, citing Cal. Penal Code
740 and 853.9.
{¶ 13} As to personal jurisdiction, Huelsman did not argue in the trial court that he
was not properly served with a copy of the citation. Instead, his argument was based on
-6-
the lack of a verified complaint. Tangentially, he did renounce his citizenship.
{¶ 14} On appeal, Huelsman appears to raise his rights as a sovereign citizen
(while not using that term specifically) by referring to himself as a “State American
National/Man of Flesh” and claiming, “It has been established by the United States
Supreme Court[,] Licensing and Registration of a ‘Private American State National,’
‘Ohioan’ has never been required and the Courts [sic] and State practices of enforcement
is [sic] a violation of the Organic United States of America and rights of the ‘People.’ ”
Appellant’s Brief at p. 4.
{¶ 15} Again, we “have previously described an argument made on these grounds
as ‘wholly frivolous.’ ” Galluzzo, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2014-CA-29, 2015-Ohio-3385,
at ¶ 47, quoting State v. Few, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25969, 2015-Ohio-2292, ¶ 6. In
Few, we remarked that: “[a]s noted by the Southern District of Ohio in DuBose v. Kasich,
S.D. Ohio No. 2:11-CV-00071, 2013 WL 164506 (Jan. 15, 2013), *3, ‘sovereign citizen
theories * * * involve the alleged corporate status of Ohio and the United States; the
relationship between the yellow fringe on the United States flag and admiralty jurisdiction;
and the effect of capitalizing the letters of his name. Plaintiff ultimately maintains that he
does not have a contract with either Ohio or the United States and, therefore, does not
have to follow government laws. * * * [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such
theories are meritless and worthy of little discussion.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 6.
{¶ 16} Accordingly, there is no merit to Huelsman’s arguments, and the judgment
of the trial court is affirmed.
.............
-7-
EPLEY, J. and LEWIS, J., concur.