Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Appenzeller

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 783
• Docket Number: 2025-L-084

• Judges: Lucci

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (10.2K)

• PDF

Syllabus

POSTCONVICTION RELIEF - void; personal jurisdiction; postconviction relief; R.C. 2953.21; R.C. 2953.23; untimely or successive petition; res judicata.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Appenzeller, 2026-Ohio-783.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-L-084

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Civil Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas

RUSSELL E. APPENZELLER,
Trial Court No. 2006 CR 000108
Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: March 9, 2026
Judgment: Affirmed

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor,
Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH
44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Russell E. Appenzeller, pro se, PID# A514-991, Richland Correctional Institution, P.O.
Box 8107, 1001 Olivesburg Road, Mansfield, OH 44901 (Defendant-Appellant).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Russell E. Appenzeller, appeals the judgment denying his

request to vacate his convictions. We affirm.

{¶2} In 2006, Appenzeller was convicted on multiple charges. On direct appeal,

this court reversed the judgment in part and remanded the matter for resentencing. State

v. Appenzeller, 2008-Ohio-7005, ¶ 124 (11th Dist.).

{¶3} Following resentencing, Appenzeller appealed. This court affirmed the

resentencing entry. State v. Appenzeller, 2009-Ohio-6384, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.).
{¶4} Thereafter, Appenzeller filed numerous petitions and other requests in the

trial court, which were denied. See, e.g., State v. Appenzeller, 2008-Ohio-6982, ¶ 5, 52

(11th Dist.) (affirming denial of petition for postconviction relief).

{¶5} In 2025, Appenzeller sent a letter to the trial court that he requested be

construed as a motion to vacate his convictions as void for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In support, Appenzeller maintained that “the ‘Plaintiff Party’ a.k.a. the ‘State of Ohio’ in

the above referenced case of which [the trial court] personally, deceptively and

fraudulently prosecuted without a ‘Plaintiff Party’ existing against [Appenzeller] ab initio

according to the face of the Docket Record.” As attachments to the letter, Appenzeller

included docket sheet printouts labeled “Summary” and “Detail.” It appears that

Appenzeller’s contention is that, because the Clerk of Courts did not list the State of Ohio

as a “Party” in the appropriate fields on these forms, the trial court did not have personal

jurisdiction.

{¶6} The State responded to the letter, contending that Appenzeller’s claim was

meritless and barred by res judicata.

{¶7} On June 11, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment entry denying

Appenzeller’s request to vacate his conviction, reasoning the request was barred by res

judicata.

{¶8} On appeal, Appenzeller assigns one error for our review:

The Trial Court erred to the prejudice of the Defendant-
Appellant in overruling Appellant's Motion To Vacate The Void
Judgments Of Conviction And Sentence against him on
grounds of res judicata.

{¶9} Appenzeller maintains that his conviction is void for lack of personal

jurisdiction.

PAGE 2 OF 7

Case No. 2025-L-084
{¶10} A court has inherent authority to vacate a void judgment. State v. Mitchell,

2020-Ohio-3417, ¶ 35 (11th Dist.). “A sentence is void only if the sentencing court lacks

jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case or personal jurisdiction over the accused.”

State v. Henderson, 2020-Ohio-4784, ¶ 27. “Personal jurisdiction refers to the court's

power to render a valid judgment against a particular individual. In a criminal matter, the

court acquires jurisdiction over a person by lawfully issued process, followed by the arrest

and arraignment of the accused and his plea to the charge.” (Citation omitted.) Id. at ¶

1. “A defendant also submits to the court’s jurisdiction if he does not object to the court’s

exercise of jurisdiction over him.” (Citation omitted.) Id. “‘Personal jurisdiction is a question

of law that appellate courts review de novo.’” Jones v. Jones, 2023-Ohio-989, ¶ 11 (11th

Dist. 2023), quoting Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 2010-Ohio-2551, ¶ 27.

{¶11} Here, Appenzeller argues that the clerk’s failure to name a plaintiff on the

docket forms deprived the trial court of personal jurisdiction. However, we can discern no

connection between the clerk’s actions with respect to completion of form fields and

personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, Appenzeller has not demonstrated that his convictions

are void.

{¶12} Further, if Appenzeller’s letter were construed as a petition for

postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21, it is untimely. See State v. Schlee, 2008-Ohio-

545, ¶ 12 (“Courts may recast irregular motions into whatever category necessary to

identify and establish the criteria by which the motion should be judged.”). Generally, a

petition for postconviction relief must be filed “no later than three hundred sixty-five days

after the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal

of the judgment of conviction . . . .” R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a). “[A] court may not entertain a

PAGE 3 OF 7

Case No. 2025-L-084
petition filed after the expiration of the period prescribed” unless R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) or

2953.23(A)(2) applies. R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) allows for a late or successive filing when both

of the following apply:

(a) Either the petitioner shows that the petitioner was
unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts upon which
the petitioner must rely to present the claim for relief, or,
subsequent to the period prescribed in division (A)(2) of
section 2953.21 of the Revised Code or to the filing of an
earlier petition, the United States Supreme Court recognized
a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to
persons in the petitioner’s situation, and the petition asserts a
claim based on that right.

(b) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence
that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable
factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense
of which the petitioner was convicted . . . .

{¶13} Division R.C. 2953.23(A)(2) permits a late or successive filing when:

The petitioner was convicted of a felony, the petitioner is an
offender for whom DNA testing was performed under sections
2953.71 to 2953.81 of the Revised Code or under former
section 2953.82 of the Revised Code and analyzed in the
context of and upon consideration of all available admissible
evidence related to the inmate’s case as described in division
(D) of section 2953.74 of the Revised Code, and the results
of the DNA testing establish, by clear and convincing
evidence, actual innocence of that felony offense or, if the
person was sentenced to death, establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, actual innocence of the aggravating
circumstance or circumstances the person was found guilty of
committing and that is or are the basis of that sentence of
death.

{¶14} “[A] petitioner’s failure to satisfy R.C. 2953.23(A) deprives a trial court of

jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of an untimely or successive postconviction petition.”

State v. Apanovitch, 2018-Ohio-4744, ¶ 36. “‘[T]he question whether a court of common

pleas possesses subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain an untimely [or successive]

PAGE 4 OF 7

Case No. 2025-L-084
petition for postconviction relief is a question of law, which appellate courts review de

novo.’” Id. at ¶ 24, quoting State v. Kane, 2017-Ohio-7838, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.).

{¶15} Here, nearly 20 years have elapsed since Appenzeller’s convictions, and

he has previously filed petitions for postconviction relief. He has set forth no argument

that would satisfy the requirements for consideration of an untimely or successive petition

for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23(A).

{¶16} Last, even were consideration of Appenzeller’s petition not barred by R.C.

2953.23(A), he does not dispute that he could have previously raised the argument at

issue. A trial court may apply res judicata to bar consideration of challenges that a

defendant could have previously raised on direct appeal or in a prior postconviction

petition. State v. Harvey, 2025-Ohio-5475, ¶ 10 (11th Dist.); State v. Miller, 2025-Ohio-

4639, ¶ 13 (11th Dist.).

{¶17} In this case, Appenzeller previously raised the same issue addressed in his

present motion in a postconviction petition filed on August 25, 2014, which the trial court

dismissed as a successive petition that did not meet the statutory requirements of R.C.

2953.23(A). Although res judicata does not apply to void judgments, as discussed above,

the present challenge does not implicate the jurisdiction of the trial court so as to render

its judgment void. See Henderson, 2020-Ohio-4784, at ¶ 19.

PAGE 5 OF 7

Case No. 2025-L-084
{¶18} For the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not err in denying Appenzeller’s

motion, and Appenzeller’s sole assigned error lacks merit.

{¶19} Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

MATT LYNCH, P.J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

PAGE 6 OF 7

Case No. 2025-L-084
JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s sole assignment of

error lacks merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Lake

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Costs to be taxed against appellant.

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI

PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH,
concurs

JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON,
concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 7 OF 7

Case No. 2025-L-084