[Cite as State v. Clinton, 2022-Ohio-717.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSHUA CLINTON

Defendant-Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Appellate Case No. 29267

Trial Court Case No. 2019-CR-684

(Criminal Appeal from

Common Pleas Court)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 11th day of March, 2022. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. No. 0069384, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 

Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

 

TRAVIS KANE, Atty. Reg. No. 0088191, 130 West Second Street, Suite 460, Dayton, 

Ohio 45402

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-2-

WELBAUM, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Joshua Clinton, appeals from the judgment of the 

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to serve 120 days in jail as 

a sanction for violating his community control sanctions. On November 15, 2021, 

Clinton’s appellate counsel filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting the absence of any meritorious 

claims to present on appeal. On November 18, 2021, this court notified Clinton that his 

counsel had found no meritorious claims to present on appeal and granted Clinton 60 

days to file a pro se brief assigning any errors for review. Clinton, however, did not file 

a pro se brief. 

{¶ 2} Because Clinton completed his 120-day jail sentence, and because the trial 

court subsequently terminated Clinton’s community control sanctions, all arguments 

related to Clinton’s sanction for violating community control are moot. There are also no 

other issues with arguable merit for Clinton to advance on appeal. Therefore, Clinton’s

appeal is wholly frivolous and will be dismissed as moot.

Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 3} On April 1, 2019, a Montgomery County grand jury indicted Clinton for one 

count of abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2), a felony of the third degree. On 

June 25, 2019, Clinton pled no contest to the indicted charge. The trial court thereafter 

accepted Clinton’s no contest plea, found Clinton guilty, and imposed a sentence of
-3-

community control sanctions not to exceed five years. As part of the sentence, the trial

court also ordered Clinton to pay a $250 supervision fee and court costs in the amount of 

$467. Clinton satisfied these financial obligations by performing 57 hours of community 

service and by making a payment of $250.

{¶ 4} On June 1, 2021, Clinton’s probation officer filed a notice with the trial court 

asserting that Clinton had violated a condition of his community control sanctions that 

required him to refrain from violating any law. Specifically, it was alleged that on May 

15, 2021, the City of Kettering Police Department charged Clinton with operating a vehicle 

under the influence of alcohol and failure to control after Clinton crashed his vehicle into 

a tree. 

{¶ 5} On October 1, 2021, Clinton appeared before the trial court and admitted to 

violating his community control sanctions. Based on Clinton’s admission, the trial court 

found that Clinton had violated the terms and conditions of his community control and 

ordered Clinton to serve 120 days in jail as a sanction for his violation. The trial court

also ordered Clinton’s community control sanctions to be terminated once Clinton

completed the 120-day jail term. In the corresponding termination entry, the trial court

waived all associated court costs and fees.

{¶ 6} Clinton thereafter appealed from the 120-day jail term imposed for his 

community control violation. As previously discussed, Clinton’s appellate counsel filed 

an Anders brief asserting the absence of any meritorious claims to present on appeal.

Standard of Review
-4-

{¶ 7} Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, this court 

must conduct an independent review of the record to determine if the appeal at issue is 

wholly frivolous. Anders at 744. “Anders equates a frivolous appeal with one that 

presents issues lacking in arguable merit.” State v. Marbury, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 

19226, 2003-Ohio-3242, ¶ 8. “An issue lacks arguable merit if, on the facts and law 

involved, no responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for reversal.” Id., 

citing State v. Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4.

{¶ 8} If we determine the appeal is frivolous, we may grant counsel’s request to 

withdraw and then dismiss the appeal without violating any constitutional requirements, 

or we can proceed to a decision on the merits if state law requires it. State v. McDaniel, 

2d Dist. Champaign No. 2010 CA 13, 2011-Ohio-2186, ¶ 5, citing Anders at 744. 

However, “[i]f we find that any issue presented or which an independent analysis reveals 

is not wholly frivolous, we must appoint different appellate counsel to represent the 

defendant.” Marbury at ¶ 7, citing Pullen.

Law and Analysis

{¶ 9} “Under the mootness doctrine, American courts will not decide cases in which 

there is no longer an actual legal controversy between the parties.” (Citations omitted.) 

Cyran v. Cyran, 152 Ohio St.3d 484, 2018-Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9. Thus, a case is 

moot “when parties ‘lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome[.]’ ” Id., quoting 

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). 

{¶ 10} “An appeal attacking an already-served felony sentence is moot when there 
-5-

is no indication that the sentence, as opposed to the conviction, will cause the defendant 

to suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights.” State v. Ingledue, 2d Dist. Clark 

No. 2018-CA-47, 2019-Ohio-397, ¶ 10. “A collateral disability is an adverse legal 

consequence of a conviction or judgment that survives despite the court’s sentence 

having been satisfied or served.” (Citation omitted.) In re S.J.K., 114 Ohio St.3d 23, 

2007-Ohio-2621, 867 N.E.2d 408, ¶ 10. “For example, a person may be subject to 

further penalties or disabilities under state or federal law even after a judgment has been 

satisfied.” (Citation omitted.) Id.

{¶ 11} This court has explained that there is no collateral disability or loss of civil 

rights under circumstances “where defendants challenge their sentences and not their 

convictions, have already completed their sentences, and have not been sentenced to 

[post-release control].” State v. Hatfield, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2017-CA-36, 2019-

Ohio-3291, ¶ 15, citing State v. Ambriez, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-04-1382, 2005-Ohio-5877, 

¶ 10, State v. Blivens, 11th Dist. Lake No. 98-L-189, 1999 WL 960955, *3 (Sept. 30, 

1997), and Ingledue at ¶ 10. In such situations, “there is no remedy we can afford” and 

therefore the appeal is moot. Hatfield at ¶ 17. 

{¶ 12} In State v. Oglesby, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28218, 2020-Ohio-394, we 

held that an appeal from an order modifying community control sanctions was moot under 

circumstances where the trial court imposed a 12-month jail sentence as a sanction for a 

community control violation, and where the offender completed the jail sentence and 

subsequently had his community control sanctions terminated by the trial court. Id. at 

¶ 10-13. In that situation, we found that “there is no relief that we can provide related to 
-6-

[the offender’s] sentence[,]” and that “ ‘ “[w]e cannot restore to him any of the time he 

spent in jail on his conviction.” ’ ” Id. at ¶ 10, quoting State v. Johnson, 2d Dist. 

Montgomery No. 27140, 2017-Ohio-4323, ¶ 9, quoting State v. MacConnell, 2d Dist. 

Montgomery No. 25437, 2013-Ohio-4947, ¶ 9. 

{¶ 13} In this case, the record indicates that the 120-day jail sentence imposed for 

Clinton’s community control violation was completed by Clinton on January 29, 2022. 

The record also indicates that the trial court terminated Clinton’s community control as 

“incomplete” on February 2, 2022. The record further indicates that the trial court waived 

all costs and fees in the matter. Therefore, Clinton is no longer subject to any penalties 

or disabilities directly relating to the conviction. Accordingly, any argument related to the 

sanction that Clinton received for violating his community control is moot, as there is no 

remedy available to Clinton on appeal.

{¶ 14} We note that in conducting our Anders review, we independently reviewed 

the transcript of the October 1, 2021 hearing, which confirmed that Clinton admitted to 

violating his community control sanctions and that the trial court imposed a 120-day jail 

sentence for the violation. The transcript of Clinton’s original sentencing hearing, which

took place on July 23, 2019, was not made a part of the record on appeal. That transcript 

would have been relevant to determine whether the trial court gave the required 

notifications under R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) at the original sentencing hearing, which concern 

the sanctions that a trial court can impose for a community control violation. Compliance 

with R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) is a prerequisite to imposing a prison term for a community 

control violation. State v. Howard, 162 Ohio St.3d 314, 2020-Ohio-3195, 165 N.E.3d 
-7-

1088, ¶ 13, citing State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, 814 N.E.2d 837, 

¶ 29.

{¶ 15} When the record on appeal does not contain transcripts from all on-therecord proceedings in the trial court, this court would normally reject the Anders brief and 

order the appointment of new counsel to supplement the record with the missing 

transcript. See State v. Roberts, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-8, 2020-Ohio-3391, ¶ 6; 

State v. Fitzgerald, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2018-CA-45, 2020-Ohio-1525, ¶ 5. 

However, in this case, even if the original sentencing hearing transcript had been made 

a part of the record on appeal, and even if the transcript revealed some form of error in 

the sentence, the matter would still be moot given that Clinton is no longer subject to any

penalties or disabilities directly relating to the sentence. As previously discussed, Clinton 

already completed the 120-day jail sentence imposed by the trial court for his community

control violation, had his community control terminated by the trial court, and was not 

required to pay any fees or costs in relation to his community control violation. 

Furthermore, our independent review of the record did not reveal any potentially 

meritorious appellate issues that are unrelated to Clinton’s sentence. Accordingly, there 

are no non-frivolous issues for Clinton to advance on appeal.

{¶ 16} For the foregoing reasons, Clinton’s appeal is dismissed as moot. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

TUCKER, P.J. and EPLEY, J., concur. 
-

8-

Copies sent to: 

Mathias H. Heck, Jr. 

Andrew T. French

Travis Kane

Joshua Clinton

Hon. Mary Katherine Huffman