State v. Ingledue , 2019 Ohio 397 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Ingledue, 
    2019-Ohio-397
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    CLARK COUNTY
    STATE OF OHIO                                      :
    :
    Plaintiff-Appellee                        :   Appellate Case No. 2018-CA-47
    :
    v.                                                 :   Trial Court Case No. 2017-CR-0189
    :
    CHARLES T. INGLEDUE                                :   (Criminal Appeal from
    :   Common Pleas Court)
    Defendant-Appellant                       :
    :
    ...........
    OPINION
    Rendered on the 8th day of February, 2019.
    ...........
    ANDREW P. PICKERING, Atty. Reg. No. 0068770, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark
    County Prosecutor’s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502
    Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
    CARLO C. MCGINNIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0019540, 55 Park Avenue, Oakwood, Ohio 45419
    Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
    .............
    TUCKER, J.
    -2-
    {¶ 1} Appellant, Charles Ingledue, was sentenced to a term of community control
    sanctions (CCS) after pleading guilty to receiving stolen property. The trial court, in
    addition to other sanctions, ordered Ingledue to serve a six-month term in the Clark
    County Jail. The alternate sentence in the event of a CCS revocation was an 18-month
    prison term. After completing the local incarceration, Ingledue admitted that he had
    violated three CCS conditions.      As a result of Ingledue’s admission, the trial court
    ordered him to serve a second six-month term in the Clark County Jail, which term has
    been completed. We conclude that the trial court did not have the authority to impose a
    second six-month term of local incarceration. However, since the sentence has been
    served, there is no meaningful relief that we can fashion, and, as a result, the appeal will
    be dismissed as moot.
    Facts and Procedural History
    {¶ 2} On April 4, 2017, Ingledue pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, a fourth
    degree felony. As noted above, the trial court sentenced Ingledue to a term of CCS, with
    one of the conditions being the requirement that he serve six months in the Clark County
    Jail. Ingledue was afforded 74 days of jail time credit, and the jail term was completed
    some time ago.
    {¶ 3} On September 21, 2017, the State initiated a CCS revocation proceeding
    against Ingledue, asserting that: 1) he had violated CCS condition 2, which required him
    to “keep [his] supervising officer informed of his residence and place of employment”; 2)
    he had violated CCS condition 5, which required that he “follow all orders verbal or written
    -3-
    including reporting requirements give[n] to [him] by [his] supervising officer * * * ”; and 3)
    he had violated special condition 12(C), which required him to complete a “drug/alcohol
    assessment and successfully complete all recommended treatment and aftercare.”
    {¶ 4} Ingledue, on February 28, 2018, admitted to the violations. The trial court
    had Ingledue screened for admission into a community based correctional facility, but this
    avenue was abandoned when Ingledue voiced opposition to such admission. On April
    2, 2018, the trial court instead imposed a second six-month term of local incarceration in
    the Clark County Jail with Ingledue’s request for jail time credit being denied. This
    appeal followed. Ingledue, without requesting a stay, has completed the second six-
    month term of local incarceration.
    Analysis
    {¶ 5} Ingledue has asserted six assignments of error as follows:
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO APPELLANT’S PREJUDICE BY
    IMPOSING SENTENCE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND
    CONTRARY TO LAW.
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO APPELLANT’S PREJUDICE
    WHEN IMPOSING A SECOND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SANCTION
    OF SIX (6) MONTHS IN JAIL IN VIOLATION OF R.C. §2929.16(A)(2).
    THEREFORE APPELLANT’S SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED.
    FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
    CONSTITUTION: SECTIONS 10 AND 16; ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO
    CONSTITUTION.
    -4-
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO APPELLANT’S PREJUDICE BY
    SPECIFYING AT SENTENCING HEARING, AND IN SENTENCING
    ENTRY, A PRISON CONSEQUENCE CONTRARY TO LAW.
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT APPELLANT
    ALL THE JAIL TIME CREDIT HE WAS ENTITLED TO.
    THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT
    FAILED TO INCLUDE IN SENTENCING ENTRY APPROPRIATE
    AMOUNT OF JAIL TIME CREDIT.
    OTHER ERRORS WERE COMMITTED AT SENTENCING NOT
    RAISED HEREIN BUT APPARENT ON THE RECORD AND THE
    CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THE ERRORS DEPRIVED APPELLANT
    OF HIS RIGHTS TO FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS
    UNDER FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED
    STATES CONSTITUTION: SECTIONS 10 AND 16; ARTICLE 1 OF THE
    OHIO CONSTITUTION.
    Each assignment of error relates, in some fashion, to the trial court’s imposition of the
    second six-month term of local incarceration.
    {¶ 6} When the initial term of local incarceration was imposed, R.C. 2929.16
    provided that a trial court, subject to restrictions not applicable to this discussion, could,
    as a community residential sanction, require a defendant sentenced to CCS to serve “up
    to six months in jail.” R.C. 2929.16(A)(2).1 The difficulty arises because in April 2018
    1
    R.C. 2929.15 and R.C. 2929.16 were significantly amended effective October 31, 2018.
    -5-
    when the trial court imposed the second six month jail term, R.C. 2929.15(B) provided
    that, upon a CCS violation, a trial court could impose “a more restrictive sanction under
    [R.C] 2929.16 * * * .” R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(b). However, since Ingledue had already
    served the maximum six-month jail term, the imposition of a second six-month jail term
    was not an available more restrictive sanction.2 As such, the trial court was without
    authority to impose the second six-month jail term. State v. Bedell, 11th Dist. Portage
    No. 2008-P-0044, 
    2009-Ohio-6031
    , ¶ 13.
    {¶ 7} This being said, Ingledue’s assignments of error all attack the now-served
    six-month prison term. This raises the issue of mootness.
    {¶ 8} An appeal which challenges a felony conviction is not moot even if a stay
    was not requested and the sentence has been served. State v. Golston, 
    71 Ohio St.3d 224
    , 
    643 N.E.2d 109
     (1994), syllabus. This is so because “[a] person convicted of a
    felony has a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction
    of the judgment imposed upon him or her.” 
    Id.
    {¶ 9} The analysis is different, however, when the appeal relates not to a
    defendant’s felony conviction but, instead, to an already-served sentence.               The
    mootness doctrine arises from the “long established [premise] that it is the duty of every
    judicial tribunal to decide actual controversies between parties legitimately affected by
    specific facts and to render judgments which can be carried into effect.” Fortner v.
    2
    R.C. 2929.15(B)(1) and R.C. 2929.16(A)(6), as amended effective October 31, 2018,
    allow the imposition of a new six-month jail term. R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(b) states that upon
    a CCS violation a trial court may impose a more restrictive sanction including “a new jail
    term * * * pursuant to [R.C. 2929.16(A)(6)].” R.C. 2929.16(A)(6) states that upon a CCS
    violation a trial court may impose “a new term of up to six months * * * in a jail, which term
    shall be in addition to any other term imposed under this division.”
    -6-
    Thomas, 
    22 Ohio St.2d 13
    , 14, 
    257 N.E.2d 371
     (1970). As such, courts should not
    decide “purely academic or abstract questions.” James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty, 
    74 Ohio App.3d 788
    , 791, 
    600 N.E.2d 736
     (10th Dist.1991), citing Miner v. Witt, 
    82 Ohio St. 237
    , 
    92 N.E. 21
     (1910).
    {¶ 10} An appeal attacking an already-served felony sentence is moot when there
    is no indication that the sentence, as opposed to the conviction, will cause the defendant
    to suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights. State v. Wilson, 
    41 Ohio St.2d 236
    , 
    325 N.E.2d 236
    , 237-238 (1975); State v. Muwwakkil, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-
    37, 
    2018-Ohio-4443
    , ¶ 7, quoting In re S.J.K., 
    114 Ohio St.3d 23
    , 
    2007-Ohio-2621
    , 
    867 N.E.2d 408
    , ¶ 10. The Eleventh District, in a similar circumstance, concluded that an
    “argument relating solely to the imposition of [an already served CCS] jail sentence is * * *
    moot.” Bedell, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2008-P-0044, 
    2009-Ohio-6031
    , at ¶ 15, citing
    State v. Corpening, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2005-A-58, 
    2006-Ohio-5290
    , ¶ 6.
    {¶ 11} Turning to the pending case, Ingledue has not suggested and we cannot
    discern any collateral disability arising from his service of the contested six-month jail
    term. We accordingly conclude that, since Ingledue’s appeal only attacks the already-
    served second six-month jail term, there is no available remedy, and the appeal is moot.
    {¶ 12} Ingledue’s appeal is dismissed as moot.3
    .............
    3
    Assuming he remains on CCS, upon a future CCS violation, Ingledue would be entitled
    to jail time credit for the jail time and any other confinement he has served. State v.
    Whited, 12th Dist. Butler No. 2018-04-79, 
    2019-Ohio-18
    . Further, Ingledue’s total period
    of confinement cannot exceed the eighteen month alternate sentence subject to R.C.
    2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii) which, as to a fourth degree felony, limits the prison term imposed
    after a technical CCS violation to ninety days, subject, of course, to credit for confinement
    already served.
    -7-
    WELBAUM, P.J. and FROELICH, J., concur.
    Copies sent to:
    Andrew P. Pickering
    Carlo C. McGinnis
    Hon. Richard J. O’Neill
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2018-CA-47

Citation Numbers: 2019 Ohio 397

Judges: Tucker

Filed Date: 2/8/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/8/2019