[Cite as State v. Sears , 2019-Ohio-703.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 107194

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. JASMINE M. SEARS

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT:

DISMISSED

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-18-625624-B

BEFORE: Headen, J., Kilbane, A.J., and Boyle, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 28, 2019ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Rachel A. Kopec 1360 East 9th Street, Suite 910 Cleveland, OH 44114

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

Carl Mazzone Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.: {¶1} This case came to be heard upon the accel erated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1. Defendant-appella nt Jasmine M. Sears (“Sears” ) appeals her sentence. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Procedural and Substantive History {¶2} This case is the result of a fight that br oke out at Cleveland Heights High School on January 26, 2018. Sears was briefly involved in the fight as she was leaving school. {¶3} On February 12, 2018, Sears a nd codefendant Qiasa P. Pr ice were indicted on one count of aggravated riot, a four th-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2917.02(A)(2). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Sears pleaded guilty to an amended charge of riot, a first-degree misdemeanor. The court sentenced Sears to six months in ja il and a $250 fine. It is from this sentence that Sears appeals, presenting two assi gnments of error for our review. Law and Analysis {¶4} In her first assignment of error, Sears argues that the trial court abused its discretion when sentencing her to prison instead of probati on. In her second assignment of error, Sears argues that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing her to the maximum jail sentence. We will address these assignments of error together.{¶5} As an initial matter, we note that “‘[g]enera lly, where a defendant, convicted of a criminal offense, has voluntarily paid the fine or completed the sentence for that offense, an appeal is

moot when no evidence is offered from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant will

suffer some collateral di sability or loss of civil rights fro m such judgment or conviction.’” Middleburg Hts. v. McClellan , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103212, 2016-Ohio-816, ¶ 7, quoting

State v. Montavon , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-631, 2013-Ohio-2009, ¶ 6, quoting State v.

Wilson , 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 325 N.E.2d 236 (1975), syllabus. {¶6} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that wh ere a misdemeanor defe ndant has satisfied his or her sentence after unsuccessfully moving fo r a stay of execution in the trial court, but without seeking a stay of execution in the appellate court, courts should c onsider three factors in determining whether the appeal is moot. Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis , 129 Ohio St.3d 389, 2011-Ohio-2673, 953 N.E.2d 278, ¶ 1. To determine whet her an appeal is moot as a result of the sentence having been voluntarily completed, courts should consider whether the defendant (1) contested the charges at trial; (2) sought a stay of execution of sentence for the purpose of preventing an intended appeal from being declar ed moot; and (3) appealed the conviction. Id . at

394. {¶7} The record in this case indicates that Sears has voluntarily completed her sentence. Although Sears filed a motion to mitigate her sent ence in the trial court and has appealed her conviction, she did not contest the charges at tria l, nor did she seek a stay of execution of her sentence. Further, Sears has not indicated that she will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from her conviction. {¶8} Based on the foregoing, Sears’s appeal is moot. {¶9} Appeal dismissed.It is ordered that appellee recove r of appellant co sts herein taxed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appella te Procedure.

______________________________________________ RAYMOND C. HEADEN, JUDGE MARY EILEEN KILBANE, A.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR