State v. Eddy

[Cite as State v. Eddy, 2022-Ohio-2176.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. 21 CA 104
NICOLE EDDY
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Municipal Court,
Case No. 19 CRB 1099
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 24, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
AMY S. DAVISON TODD BARSTOW
40 West Main Street 261 West Johnstown Road, Suite 204
Newark, Ohio 43055 Columbus, Ohio 43230
Licking County, Case No. 21 CA 104 2
Wise, John, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Nicole Eddy appeals the revocation of her community
control status and imposition of the remainder of her jail sentence.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On June 13, 2019, Appellant Nicole Eddy took items from a Walmart store
located in Heath, Ohio. The value of those items was $79.49.
{¶3} On June 14, 2019, Appellant was charged by way of Complaint with Theft,
a misdemeanor of the first degree.
{¶4} On September 27, 2019, Appellant appeared with counsel and entered a
plea of guilty to that charge. The trial court imposed a jail term of ninety (90) days but
suspended imposition of that term and placed her on community control for two years
with certain conditions. (Judgment Entry 9/27/2019).
{¶5} On March 2, 2020, the State filed a statement of violations.
{¶6} On March 2, 2020, Appellant appeared without counsel. At that time
Appellant received a copy of the probation violation motion and was advised of its
contents. The trial court found probable cause that she had violated her probation.
(Judgment Entry, 3/2/2020).
{¶7} On November 30, 2021, Appellant's attorney received a copy of the
sentencing entry and motion to revoke.
{¶8} Following a series of continuances, some related to the pandemic and
others for Appellant's failure to appear, the matter was set for final hearing on December
8, 2021.
Licking County, Case No. 21 CA 104 3
{¶9} On December 8, 2021, Appellant appeared for the hearing with counsel.
Counsel indicated to the trial court he was ready to proceed with the hearing. (T. at 3).
Counsel did not object or ask for a continuance despite a lack of discovery prior to the
beginning of the proceeding. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court revoked
Appellant’s community control status and imposed the remainder of the reserved jail term.
(Judgment Entry 12/8/21).
{¶10} Appellant now appeals, raising the following assignments of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶11} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY
DENYING HER DUE PROCESS OF LAW AT HER COMMUNITY CONTROL
REVOCATION HEARING.”
I.
{¶12} In her sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues that her due process
rights were violated because she did not receive discovery prior to her probation violation
hearing.
{¶13} When a criminal defendant has completed the sentence for the offense, an
appeal is moot when no evidence is offered from which an inference can be drawn the
defendant will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment or
conviction. State v. Berndt, 29 Ohio St.3d 3, 4, 504 N.E.2d 712, 713 (1987), as quoted by
State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 70 O.O.2d 431, 325 N.E.2d 236, syllabus (1975). The
burden of presenting evidence of a “substantial stake in the judgment of conviction” is
upon the defendant. Id.Licking County, Case No. 21 CA 104 4
{¶14} A person convicted of a felony has a substantial stake in the judgment of
conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed; therefore, an appeal
challenging a felony conviction is not moot even if the entire sentence has been satisfied
before the matter is heard on appeal. State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 1994-Ohio-
109, 643 N.E.2d 109, syllabus, distinguishing Berndt, supra; Wilson, supra.
{¶15} Appellant herein was convicted only of a misdemeanor and has completed
her sentence. Upon review of the record, we find Appellant has made no demonstration
of collateral disability or loss of civil rights from the conviction. See State v. Coughlin, 5th
Dist. Delaware No. 18 CAC 09 0071, 2019-Ohio-2143, ¶¶ 10-13.
{¶16} Any decision by this Court as to issues raised with regard to discovery would
be purely advisory. “[I]t is well established that the role of courts is to “ ‘decide actual
controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect.’ ” Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St.
237, 238, 92 N.E. 21 (1910), quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40
L.Ed. 293 (1895) and this Court has “a responsibility to refrain from giving advisory
opinions.” Smith v. Leis, 111 Ohio St.3d 493, 2006-Ohio-6113, 857 N.E.2d 138, ¶ 16.
Cyran v. Cyran, 152 Ohio St.3d 484, 2018-Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487 ¶12. Because
Appellant has completed her sentence in this matter, we cannot issue a “judgment which
can be carried into effect” and our ruling would be purely advisory. See Toombs v.
McGuire, 5th Dist. Morrow No. 20CA0005, 2021-Ohio-387, ¶ 6.
Licking County, Case No. 21 CA 104 5
{¶17} Accordingly, we find this matter to be moot and hereby dismiss the instant
appeal.
By: Wise, John, J.
Wise, Earle, P. J., and
Delaney, J., concur.
JWW/kw 0623