[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, 2019 
ATTORNEY 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 44113 
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.: 

{¶1} This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 

and Loc.R. 11.1. Defendant-appellant 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 broke 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 and codefendant Qiasa P. Price were indicted on one 

count of aggravated riot, a fourth-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 jail and a $250 fine. It is from this sentence that 

Sears appeals, presenting two assignments 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 probation. 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]enerally, 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 disability or loss of civil rights from 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 where a misdemeanor defendant has satisfied 

his or her sentence after unsuccessfully moving for a stay of execution in the trial court, but 

without seeking a stay of execution in the appellate court, courts should consider 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 whether 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 declared 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 sentence in the trial court and has appealed her 

conviction, she did not contest the charges at trial, 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 recover of appellant costs herein taxed. 

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

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

______________________________________________ 

RAYMOND C. HEADEN, JUDGE 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, A.J., and 

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR