State v. Field

[Cite as State v. Field, 2016-Ohio-5885.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NO. 2016-G-0066
- vs - :
DALE P. FIELD JR., :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
10C000087.
Judgment: Appeal dismissed.
James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecutor, and Nicholas A. Burling, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, Courthouse Annex, 231 Main Street, Suite 3A, Chardon, OH
44024 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Dale P. Field, Jr., pro se, 451 West Wilford Street, Grafton, WV 26354 (Defendant-
Appellant).
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.
{¶1} Appellee, State of Ohio, moves to dismiss appellant’s appeal from the trial
court’s decision denying appellant’s motions for jail time credit on two grounds. First,
appellee argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, this appeal should
be dismissed. This court’s jurisdiction is not determined by whether the trial court had
jurisdiction. The trial court decided the merits of the motions for jail time credit, and as
such, the ruling affects a substantial right rendered in a special proceeding and is
appealable. R.C. 2505.02(B)(2). State v. Thompson, __ Ohio St. ___, 2016-Ohio-2769,
¶13. Accordingly, this argument is overruled. Moreover, it is seemingly illogical to
assert that an appellate court would lack jurisdiction to review a trial court’s decision
merely because the trial court lacked jurisdiction. This would lead to an absurd result as
it would leave the arguably void decision in full force.
{¶2} The State of Ohio also moves to dismiss because the issue on appeal,
i.e., jail time credit, is moot as appellant has fully served his sentence and was recently
released from prison.
{¶3} Appellant does not challenge that he has served his sentence and been
released from prison. Instead, he argues that he remains under post-release control
and is subject to additional prison time should he violate terms. Thus, he argues jail
time credit is not moot since his liberty is still at stake pending completion of post-
release control.
{¶4} Generally, “once a defendant has served his sentence and has been
released from prison, * * * any error related to the calculation of his jail-time credit is
moot[,]” State v. Feagin, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-12-014, 2013-Ohio-1837, ¶4, citing
State ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio St. 3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, 859 N.E.2d 928,
because “there is no further ongoing or future penalty from which this court can grant
relief.” City of Cleveland v. Pavlick, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91232, 2008-Ohio-6164,
¶6. Jail time credit issues concern the length of the sentence, and not the underlying
conviction, and as such, there is no collateral disability. Feagin, supra.
2
{¶5} Here, Field is not challenging the length of his underlying sentence.
Instead, he disputes the length of the possible term of imprisonment if he violates post-
release control.
{¶6} If appellant violates his post-release control sanctions, and the trial court
imposes prison as a result, then it should consider this issue at that time. State v.
Franklin, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 25677, 2013-Ohio-5164, ¶15 (holding no
meaningful remedy at this juncture, and explaining that if appellant violates community
control sanctions, the trial court should consider the issue of jail time credit during
sentencing for the violation); State v. Jirousek, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2014-G-3192,
2015-Ohio-949, ¶48 (Cannon, P.J. concurring) (agreeing with the majority, but writing
separately to note that the issue was moot).
{¶7} Accordingly, the state’s motion to dismiss is granted as the sole issue on
appeal is moot.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J.,
DIANE V. GRENDELL J.,
concur.
3