State v. Paxton

[Cite as State v. Paxton, 2020-Ohio-4237.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 28583
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2019-CRB-2205
:
ANGELA PAXTON : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
:
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 28th day of August, 2020.
...........
STEPHANIE L. COOK, Atty. Reg. No. 0067101 and ANDREW SEXTON, Atty. Reg. No.
0070892, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, City of Dayton Prosecutor’s Office, 335 West
Third Street, Room 372, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
V. GAYLE MILLER, Atty. Reg. No. 0091528, P.O. Box 10124, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
TUCKER, P.J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Appellant Angela Paxton appeals from a misdemeanor domestic violence
conviction. For the reasons that follow, the appeal will be dismissed as moot.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Paxton and her long-time live-in boyfriend, David, became embroiled in a
heated argument during which Paxton threatened to “f***ing kill” David. David thereafter
contacted the Dayton Police Department, and two criminal complaints were issued
against Paxton. One complaint charged Paxton with domestic violence in violation of
R.C. 2919.25(C), a fourth-degree misdemeanor, and the second charged Paxton with
menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.22, also a fourth-degree misdemeanor.
{¶ 3} Following a bench trial, Paxton was found guilty of each offense. The trial
court merged the offenses at the sentencing hearing, and the State elected to proceed
on the domestic violence charge. The trial court ordered Paxton to serve a 30-day jail
sentence, but 29 days were suspended and she was given credit for one day already
served. Paxton was also sentenced to supervised probation, which imposed certain
restrictions and required her to complete various probation conditions. The trial court
also imposed a $50 fine and court costs.
{¶ 4} Paxton appealed the domestic violence conviction, but she did not request
that the execution of the sentence be stayed. She has paid the fine and court costs.
Paxton’s probation has been completed, and the trial court filed an entry discharging
Paxton from further probation supervision. The April 2020 entry stated in relevant part as
follows:
The court finds [Paxton] [has] completed all the requirements of probation
* * * including the payment of probation fees * * *. Additionally, [Paxton]
-3-
owes a balance of $0 in fines and court costs.
Analysis
{¶ 5} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue
judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cyran v. Cyran, 152 Ohio St. 3d 484, 2018-
Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9, citing Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St. 2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d
371 (1970). “Under the mootness doctrine, American courts will not decide cases in
which there is no longer an actual legal controversy between the parties.” Id. citing In re
A.G., 139 Ohio St. 3d 572, 2014-Ohio-2597, 13 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 37. “Thus, when parties
‘lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,’ a case becomes moot.” Id. quoting
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1969).
{¶ 6} When a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor offense voluntarily satisfies
the imposed judgment, an appeal of the conviction is moot unless the judgment was
served involuntarily or the “defendant * * * offer[s] evidence from which an inference can
be drawn that * * * he will suffer some collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights
stemming from [the] conviction.” State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St. 3d 224, 226, 643 N.E.2d
109 (1994). See also City of Dayton v. Elifritz, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19604, 2004-
Ohio-455, ¶ 4. A sentence is not served voluntarily if a stay is requested but denied.
City of Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis, 129 Ohio St. 3d 389, 2011-Ohio-2673, 953 N.E.2d 278,
¶ 23.
{¶ 7} “[A] collateral legal disability implies a separate and distinct consequence
from the original criminal prosecution, that is, there must be some other effect, adverse
to the defendant beyond expected punishment for his current offense.” State v. McCarty,
2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20581, 2005-Ohio-4031, ¶ 4, citing City of North Royalton v.
-4-
Baker, 65 Ohio App. 3d 644, 584 N.E.2d 1308 (8th Dist.1989). A collateral disability
exists when an offender “may be subject to further penalties or disabilities under state or
federal law even after a judgment has been satisfied.” In re S.J.K., 114 Ohio St. 3d 23,
2007-Ohio-2621, 867 N.E.2d 408, ¶ 10. A collateral disability “need not have an
immediate impact or impairment but may be something that occurs in the future.” Id. at
¶ 14.
{¶ 8} As noted, Paxton did not request a stay. Thus, as reflected by the trial
court’s April 2020 entry, Paxton has served the jail sentence and otherwise satisfied the
trial court’s judgment voluntarily.
{¶ 9} Based upon R.C. 2919.25(D), Paxton does face the possibility that a
subsequent domestic violence conviction will be enhanced as a result of the conviction in
this case. But, in State v. Berndt, 29 Ohio St. 3d 3, 504 N.E.2d 712 (1987), the Ohio
Supreme Court rejected an argument that the possible enhancement of a future offense
is a collateral disability, because “no such disability will exist if [the defendant] remains in
the confines of the law.” Id. at 4-5. See also State v. Caudill, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
24881, 2012-Ohio-2230, ¶ 12. Otherwise, Paxton does not suggest, and we cannot
discern, any collateral disability resulting from the conviction in this case. Since Paxton
voluntarily satisfied the trial court’s judgment and she does not face a collateral disability,
the appeal is moot and must be dismissed.
Conclusion
{¶ 10} For the stated reasons, Paxton’s appeal is dismissed.
.............
-5-
DONOVAN, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Stephanie L. Cook
Andrew Sexton
V. Gayle Miller
Hon. Christopher D. Roberts