State v. York

[Cite as State v. York, 2018-Ohio-1134.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs-
Case No. 17-CA-20
MORGAN RAE YORK
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Common
Pleas Court, Case No. 14CR135
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 23, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
FAIRFIELD COUNTY JASON M. DONNELL
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE Law Offices of Jason M. Donnell, LLC.
239 W. Main Street #101 118 S. Pearl Street
Lancaster, Ohio 43130 Lancaster, Ohio 43130
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-20 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Appellant Morgan Rae York appeals the judgment entered by the Fairfield
County Common Pleas Court revoking her community control and ordering her to serve
the remainder of her sentence of incarceration of ten months. Appellee is the state of
Ohio.1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
{¶2} On August 1, 2014, Appellant was placed in Treatment in Lieu of Conviction
for one count of theft of a credit card (R.C. 2913.71). She failed to report to her probation
officer, and her treatment in lieu of conviction was revoked. She was placed on
community control on February 9, 2015.
{¶3} On April 13, 2017, a probable cause entry was filed stating Appellant failed
to report to community control, failed to notify the court of a change of address, and failed
to comply with counseling orders.
{¶4} The case proceeded to a revocation hearing on April 19, 2017. The
probation officer who testified at the hearing was permitted to testify over objection to
violations included in Appellant’s file which occurred prior to the probation officer taking
over the case.
{¶5} By judgment filed April 19, 2017, the court found Appellant violated the
terms of her community control. Appellant’s community control was revoked and she was
sentenced to ten months incarceration, which was the remainder of her sentence. She
1 Appellee has not filed a brief in the instant appeal. Pursuant to App. R. 18(C), we may
accept Appellant’s statement of the facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment
if Appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain such action.
2 A rendition of the facts is unnecessary for our disposition of this appeal.
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-20 3
was given 179 days jail time credit. From this entry Appellant prosecutes this appeal,
assigning as error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS BY ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE RECORDS AND ENTRIES
WHICH WERE NOT AUTHENTICATED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER
WHO DRAFTED AND FILED SAID RECORDS.
II. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS BY RELYING ON EVIDENCE BY A PROBATION OFFICER NOT
ASSIGNED TO APPELLANT’S CASE WITHOUT A FINDING OF GOOD
CAUSE WHY THE PROBATION OFFICER ASSIGNED TO THE CASE
COULD NOT APPEAR.
{¶6} At the oral argument in this matter, Appellant's counsel informed this court
Appellant has completed her sentence. The record further demonstrates Appellant
completed the sentence imposed by the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court on August
20, 2017. Appellant was not placed under postrelease control by the parole board. Thus,
the issue for initial determination is whether Appellant's appeal in this matter is moot.
{¶7} An appeal challenging a conviction is not moot even if the entire sentence
has been served before the appeal is heard, 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.” State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 643 N.E.2d
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-20 4
109, paragraph one of the syllabus (1994). “However, this logic does not apply if appellant
is appealing solely on the issue of the length of his sentence and not on the underlying
conviction. If an individual has already served his sentence, there is no collateral disability
or loss of civil rights that can be remedied by a modification of the length of that sentence
in the absence of a reversal of the underlying conviction.” State v. Campbell, 5th Dist.
Licking No. 2005CA00091, 166 Ohio App.3d 363, 2006-Ohio-2294, 850 N.E.2d 799, ¶ 8,
quoting State v. Beamon, 11th Dist. Lake App. No. 2000–L–160, 2001 WL 1602656 (Dec.
14, 2001).
{¶8} The appeal in this case is from the imposition of the remainder of a term of
incarceration upon revocation of community control. Appellant does not challenge the
underlying conviction. Because the appeal is solely on the issue of sentence, we find the
appeal is now moot because Appellant has served her sentence in its entirety.
{¶9} The appeal is dismissed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Wise, John, P.J. and
Wise, Earle, J. concur