[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, 2018ATTORNEYS 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 44113MELODY J. STEWART, J.: {¶1} In 2006, defendant-appellant Rosue C. Pierce pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition and carrying a concealed weapon. Th e 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 viol ation, 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 fo r 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 ag ree with the state that under these circumstances, taking judicial notice of the doc ket 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 re viewing court should be limite d to what transpiredin 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 recove r of appellant co sts herein taxed.

The court finds there were reas onable 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 Appella te Procedure.

______________________________________________ MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR