[Cite as State v. Brown,
2024-Ohio-4808.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MIAMI COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Appellee : C.A. No. 2024-CA-7
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2023 TRD 07057
:
JAMES F. BROWN : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
:
Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on October 4, 2024
...........
JAMES F. BROWN, Pro Se Appellant
FRANK J. PATRIZIO, Attorney for Appellee
.............
WELBAUM, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, James F. Brown, appeals pro se from a judgment
finding him guilty of speeding and of operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s
license. The judgment was entered after Brown pled guilty to both charges. Because
-2-
Brown failed to assert an assignment of error, the State suggests a proposed assignment
of error, which is that Brown could not be convicted of driving without a license because,
as an “unfranchised common law free man,” he was not required to comply with state
laws requiring him to obtain a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle.
{¶ 2} Brown’s assertion involves nothing more than an attempt to substitute
another name for a “sovereign citizen” claim. Ohio courts have repeatedly found these
types of claims frivolous, and that applies here. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment
will be affirmed.
I. Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 3} On November 27, 2023, a traffic citation was filed in Miami County Municipal
Court charging Brown with speeding (37 miles per hour in a 25-mile hour zone) and
operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license in violation of R.C. 4510.12(A).
After Brown pled not guilty to the charges, the case was set for a bench trial on January
24, 2024. At that time, Brown appeared and pled guilty to the charges. As a result, the
court found Brown guilty as charged and sentenced him to a $250 fine plus court costs.
{¶ 4} Brown then filed a timely notice of appeal and asked that a transcript be
prepared at the State’s expense. We overruled Brown’s request because he failed to
submit a financial affidavit of indigency as required. We also ordered Brown to take the
needed steps to file a transcript within 30 days and cautioned him that failure to do so
would result in our deeming the record to be complete in its current state. Order
Overruling Motion for Transcript at State’s Expense (Mar. 20, 2024), p. 1-2.
-3-
{¶ 5} The summary of docket and journal entries was filed on March 25, 2024.
Subsequently, we filed a show cause order requiring Brown, within 14 days of the order’s
journalization, to either file the transcript or show cause why the record should not be
deemed complete. Show Cause Order (Apr. 22, 2024). After Brown failed to either
respond or file a transcript, we deemed the record complete and ordered the clerk to file
the App.R. 11(B) notice. We noted that Brown’s brief would be due 20 days after the
notice was filed. Order Deeming Record Complete (May 9, 2024).
{¶ 6} The clerk issued the App.R.11(B) notice the same day, and when Brown
failed to timely file his brief, we issued another show cause order requiring Brown, within
14 days, to either file a brief or show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for
lack of prosecution. Show Cause Order (June 6, 2024). Brown responded by filing a
brief on June 17, 2024, and the State then timely replied.
II. Discussion
{¶ 7} As the State notes, Brown fails to assert an assignment of error. Thus,
Brown has not complied 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 of the appellant with respect to
-4-
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.” State v. Huelsman, 2023-
Ohio-649, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Mize, 2022-Ohio-3163, ¶ 77 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 8} Another issue here is that no transcript of proceedings, including the
transcript of the plea and sentencing hearings, has been filed. In such situations, “we
must presume the regularity of the trial court proceedings unless the limited record before
us affirmatively demonstrates error.” State v. White, 2018-Ohio-2573, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.),
citing Banks v. Regan,
2008-Ohio-188, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), and Knapp v. Edwards
Laboratories,
61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980).
{¶ 9} Despite these deficiencies, we will consider the State’s characterization of
Brown’s alleged error, which is as follows:
The Trial Court Erred by Convicting Defendant of Driving Without a
Valid License (R.C. 4510.12) Because as an Unfranchised Common Law
Free Man, He Is Not Required to Comply With State Laws Requiring a
Driver’s License to Operate a Motor Vehicle on Roads Within the State of
Ohio.
{¶ 10} According to Brown, he is a “unfranchised common law free man” and has
the right to travel freely without obtaining a driver’s license. The State interprets this as
a “sovereign citizen” argument that has been rejected by Ohio courts.
{¶ 11} R.C. 4510.12(A)(1) states that:
-5-
No person, except those expressly exempted under sections
4507.03, 4507.04, and 4507.05 of the Revised Code, shall operate any
motor vehicle upon a public road or highway or any public or private
property used by the public for purposes of vehicular travel or parking in this
state unless the person has a valid driver's license issued under Chapter
4507. of the Revised Code or a commercial driver's license issued under
Chapter 4506. of the Revised Code.
{¶ 12} There is no indication that Brown fits within any express exemption, and he
therefore was required to have a valid driver’s license in order to operate a motor vehicle.
Brown’s guilty plea was an admission to the fact that he was, indeed, driving without a
valid license. “However, when a constitutional challenge alleges that the state may not
convict the defendant no matter how thoroughly his factual guilt is established, the
defendant may bring that challenge despite having pleaded guilty.” State v. Swazey,
2023-Ohio-4627, ¶ 29, citing State v. Wilson,
58 Ohio St.2d 52, 54 (1979). Despite this
allowance for appeal, Brown’s argument is not a legitimate constitutional challenge.
{¶ 13} While we found no authority involving the specific term “unfranchised
common law free man,” this is simply a different name for a repeatedly rejected claim.
The claim is that: “ ‘Sovereign citizens believe that their status as sovereign citizens
exempts them from the United States laws and tax system. Whereas in common law,
where citizens would be free men, under admiralty law, the United States government
subjugates all citizens by eliminating the rights given to individuals by the Declaration of
Independence and Bill of Rights.’ ” State v. Few, 2015-Ohio-2292, ¶ 5 (2d Dist.), quoting
-6-
from a brief filed by the appellant’s counsel in that case.
{¶ 14} In Few, we found this argument “frivolous,” noting from a federal district
court case that “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 [plaintiff’s] 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.’ ” Id. at ¶ 6, quoting DuBose v. Kasich, 2013 WL 164506, *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan.
15, 2013). Accord Furr v. Ruehlman,
2023-Ohio-481, ¶ 10 (citing Few and several other
Ohio appellate court cases and agreeing that sovereign citizen claims are baseless).
{¶ 15} Although Brown argues in his brief that he is not a “sovereign citizen” but is
instead “an unfranchised common law man,” this is a distinction without a difference.
Consequently, Brown’s claim lacks merit, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
.............
TUCKER, J. and LEWIS, J., concur.
