State v. Reed , 2021 Ohio 406 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Reed, 2021-Ohio-406.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
OTTAWA COUNTY
State of Ohio/City of Port Clinton Court of Appeals No. OT-19-047
Appellee Trial Court No. TRD1900817B
v.
David A. Reed DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: February 12, 2021
*****
James J. VanEerten, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Alec W. Vogelpohl, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Cory B. Kuhlman, for appellant.
*****
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, David Reed, appeals the February 6, 2020 judgment of the
Ottawa County Municipal Court finding him guilty of operating an under-speed vehicle
in violation of R.C. 4511.214(A)(2). Because we find that this case is moot, we dismiss
the appeal.
I. Background and Facts1
{¶ 2} On April 2, 2019, Reed was stopped by Officer Essex of the Marblehead
Police Department while driving a golf cart on Memorial Shoreway in Ottawa County.
Essex issued Reed a ticket for violating R.C. 4511.214(A)(2), “lowspeed-underspeed
[sic] vehicle.”
{¶ 3} The case was tried to the court on August 7, 2019. The court found Reed
guilty of violating R.C. 4511.214(A)(2).
{¶ 4} On October 25, 2019, the court sentenced Reed to a fine of $10 and court
costs, resulting in a total sanction of $125. The record reflects that Reed paid the entire
sanction on October 25, 2019.
{¶ 5} On November 8, 2019, Reed filed his notice of appeal. He did not file a
motion to stay his sentence pending appeal either in the trial court or with this court.
{¶ 6} In his brief, Reed raises one assignment of error:
The Trial Court erred in its application of O.R.C. Section 4511.214
by applying it to a private roadway.
1
On August 7, 2019, the parties filed a set of joint stipulations with the trial court that
contains more detailed factual information about the case, but there is no indication in the
record that the trial court adopted the stipulations. Therefore, our factual recitation is
brief and limited to what is in the traffic citation and the trial court’s judgment entry of
conviction and sentence.
2.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 7} As an initial matter, we must address the argument raised by appellee, the
city of Port Clinton, that Reed’s appeal is moot.
{¶ 8} Under Ohio law, an appeal from a misdemeanor conviction is moot if the
defendant voluntarily serves the sentence unless the defendant demonstrates that he will
suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights arising from the conviction. Toledo
v. Cowans, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-07-1332, 2008-Ohio-2989, ¶ 9, citing State v. Golston,
71 Ohio St.3d 224, 226, 643 N.E.2d 109 (1994). A defendant “voluntarily” serves his
sentence if he does not file a motion to stay the execution of his sentence pending appeal.
Id. Here, the record shows that Reed paid his entire sanction on October 25, 2019—the
same day that he was sentenced—without seeking a stay pending appeal. Therefore, we
find that Reed voluntarily served his sentence.
{¶ 9} Because Reed voluntarily served his sentence, in order for us to consider his
appeal, he must provide evidence from which we can infer that he will “‘suffer some
collateral disability or the loss of civil rights’ arising from [his] conviction * * *.” State
v. Hobbs, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1165, 2019-Ohio-5145, ¶ 9, quoting Cleveland Hts. v.
Lewis, 129 Ohio St.3d 389, 2011-Ohio-2673, 953 N.E.2d 278, ¶ 18. The defendant bears
the burden of producing evidence that he has such a “substantial stake” in his conviction
to pursue an otherwise moot appeal. Golston at 226. Our review of the record shows that
Reed has failed to satisfy this burden.
3.
{¶ 10} Reed devotes his brief to arguing that the road on which he was stopped
and cited was a private road, not a public road, and that R.C. 4511.214 does not apply to
private roads. He does not, however, argue that he has any stake—substantial or
otherwise—in his conviction that would allow him to pursue this moot appeal. And
when the city raised the issue of mootness in its brief, Reed did not file a reply brief
pointing out a collateral disability or loss of civil rights that accompanies his conviction.
Put simply, Reed failed in his burden to provide any evidence showing that he will suffer
a collateral disability or loss of civil rights. Golston at 226. Accordingly, his appeal is
moot and we will not consider it.2
III. Conclusion
{¶ 11} This appeal is moot as a result of Reed voluntarily completing his sentence
and failing to identify a collateral disability or loss of civil rights associated with his
conviction. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal. Reed is ordered to pay the costs of this
appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Appeal dismissed.
2
Even if the case were not moot, we would be compelled to affirm the trial court because
Reed did not file a transcript of the August 7, 2019 bench trial, and “[w]hen portions of
the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the
reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court
has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.”
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980).
4.
Port Clinton v. Reed
C.A. No. OT-19-047
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
_______________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
5.