[Cite as State v. Pierce, 2018-Ohio-2646.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 106217 

 

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

ROSUE C. PIERCE

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-16-611371-A 

BEFORE: Stewart, J., Kilbane, P.J., and Jones, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 5, 2018 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Mark A. Stanton 

Cuyahoga County Public Defender 

 

Frank Cavallo 

Assistant Public Defender 

310 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

Daniel T. Van 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
MELODY J. STEWART, J.: 

{¶1} In 2006, defendant-appellant Rosue C. Pierce pleaded guilty to gross sexual 

imposition and carrying a concealed weapon. The court sentenced him to a three-year 

community control sanction and classified him as a sexually oriented offender with a duty to 

register his address. In August 2016, the state charged Pierce with a failure to register in 

violation of R.C. 2950.04(E). Pierce pleaded guilty to the charge and received a one-year term 

of community control. After Pierce’s second community control violation, the court revoked 

community control and ordered him to serve a nine-month prison term. 

{¶2} In this appeal from the revocation of community control, Pierce claims that the court 

never issued a final sentence in the 2006 case, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-05-466751-A. He 

maintains that the court issued a “blanket” sentence of community control and did not enter a 

sentence on each count as required by State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 

N.E.2d 824, where paragraph one of the syllabus states: “A sentence is the sanction or 

combination of sanctions imposed for each separate, individual offense.” 

{¶3} The trial court record in CR-05-466751-A is not before us, nor has Pierce attempted 

to supplement the record in this appeal. We agree with the state that under these circumstances, 

taking judicial notice of the docket in CR-05-466751-A in this appeal would violate the rule that 

an appellate court may not add to the record on appeal and then decide the case on the basis of 

the added material. State v. Hill, 90 Ohio St.3d 571, 573, 2001-Ohio-20, 740 N.E.2d 282. 

“Since a reviewing court can only reverse the judgment of a trial court if it finds error in the 

proceedings of such court, it follows that a reviewing court should be limited to what transpired 
in the trial court as reflected by the record made of the proceedings.” State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio 

St.2d 402, 405-406, 377 N.E.2d 500 (1978). 

{¶4} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas 

court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

______________________________________________ 

MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR