State v. Ekouevi , 2023 Ohio 703 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Ekouevi, 2023-Ohio-703.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-220267
TRIAL NO. C-21CRB-22403B
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
O P I N I O N.
vs. :
ENZO EKOUEVI, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Appeal Dismissed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 8, 2023
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Sarah E. Nelson, Assistant
Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
KINSLEY, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Enzo Ekouevi appeals from the trial court’s
judgment convicting him, following a bench trial, of failure to comply in violation of
R.C. 2921.331(A) and sentencing him to a $170 fine and court costs. In a single
assignment of error, Ekouevi challenges the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence
supporting his conviction. But because the record demonstrates that Ekouevi
voluntarily paid both the imposed fine and costs despite obtaining a stay of his
sentence pending appeal, we hold that his appeal is moot and that this court lacks
jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.
Factual and Procedural Background
{¶2} Complaints were filed in the Hamilton County Municipal Court
charging Ekouevi with obstructing official business and failure to comply with the
order or signal of a police officer. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted
Ekouevi’s Crim.R. 29 motion for an acquittal with respect to the charge of obstructing
official business, but it found Ekouevi guilty of the failure-to-comply offense.
{¶3} At sentencing, the trial court imposed a $170 fine and court costs and
granted Ekouevi’s request for a stay pending appeal. Despite obtaining a stay, Ekouevi
voluntarily paid both the fine and costs.
Appeal is Moot
{¶4} The law is well-settled that an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to
consider the merits of a moot appeal. In re Chambers, 2019-Ohio-3596, 142 N.E.3d
1243, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.). For an appellate court to have jurisdiction over an appeal in which
the defendant has fully served the sentence before the appeal is heard, the defendant
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
must show either that the sentence was not served voluntarily or that she or he will
suffer ongoing collateral disabilities or loss of civil rights. Id., citing State v. Wilson,
41 Ohio St.2d 236, 325 N.E.2d 236 (1975), syllabus; State v. Farris, 1st Dist. Hamilton
No. C-150567, 2016-Ohio-5527, ¶ 4. This rule applies only to misdemeanor
convictions, as felony convictions result in collateral disabilities as a matter of law.
Chambers at ¶ 9.
{¶5} With regard to whether a sentence was served voluntarily, “[t]he
completion of a sentence is not voluntary and will not moot an appeal if the
circumstances surrounding it demonstrate that the appellant neither acquiesced in the
judgment nor abandoned the right to appellate review, that the appellant has a
substantial stake in the judgment of conviction, and that there is subject matter for the
appellate court to decide.” Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis, 129 Ohio St.3d 389, 2011-Ohio-
2673, 953 N.E.2d 278, ¶ 26.
{¶6} With regard to collateral disabilities, a defendant may be found to suffer
from such a disability where she or he would be subject to additional penalties or
disabilities after a judgment has been satisfied. State v. Morgan, 1st Dist. Hamilton
No. C-210509, 2022-Ohio-2932, ¶ 9. The disability may be something that occurs in
the future and need not have an immediate impact. Id. The defendant bears the
burden of presenting evidence of a collateral disability. State v. Kuhlman, 6th Dist.
Ottawa No. OT-21-012, 2022-Ohio-1106, ¶ 11; State v. Glisson, 12th Dist. Clermont
No. CA2020-11-064, 2021-Ohio-1985, ¶ 11.
{¶7} Ekouevi contends that his appeal is not moot because he did not
acquiesce to the trial court’s judgment. But despite obtaining a stay from the trial
court, Ekouevi voluntarily paid the imposed fine and costs. Therefore, in the absence
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
of Ekouevi’s presentation of evidence from which an inference could be drawn that he
will suffer a collateral disability, this voluntary payment of the fine after the issuance
of a stay by the trial court moots Ekouevi’s appeal. See State v. Krohn, 11th Dist.
Geauga No. 96-G-1970, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4608 (Oct. 18, 1996) (where appellant
did not offer any evidence that he would suffer a collateral legal disability, the appeal
was moot where appellant paid the imposed fine despite obtaining a stay pending
appeal). Here, Ekouevi has presented no evidence from which an inference can be
drawn that his conviction will result in him suffering a collateral legal disability. We
therefore hold that Ekouevi’s appeal is moot.
{¶8} As this court has no jurisdiction over a moot appeal, the appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
ZAYAS, P.J., and BOCK, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
4