[Cite as State v. Hace, 2016-Ohio-7815.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF MEDINA ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

MICHELLE HACE 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 15CA0080-M 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

MEDINA MUNICIPAL COURT 

COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO 

CASE No. 14TRC08398 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: November 21, 2016 

 

MOORE, Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Michelle Hace appeals from the judgment of the Medina 

Municipal Court. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the trial court’s sentencing entry 

and remand the matter for further proceedings. 

I. 

{¶2} In December 2014, a complaint was filed against Ms. Hace for a violation of R.C. 

4511.194(B), physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Ms. Hace filed a 

motion to suppress, which was denied following a hearing. Thereafter, she entered a plea of no 

contest and filed a notice of appeal on July 10, 2015, prior to being sentenced. On July 28, 2015, 

she filed a “Notice of Withdraw[al] of Appeal[.]” On August 21, 2015, the trial court sentenced 

Ms. Hace, imposing a $300 fine. On September 3, 2015, this Court granted Ms. Hace’s motion 

to dismiss her appeal. Ms. Hace subsequently appealed, raising three assignments of error for 

our review. 
2 

 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE OFFICER’S 

INITIAL APPROACH OF [MS. HACE’S] PARKED VEHICLE WAS A VALID 

EXECUTION OF THE COMMUNITY CARETAKING FUNCTION. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE OFFICER’S 

CONTINUED DETENTION OF [MS. HACE], FOR PURPOSES OF 

EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION, WAS VALID 

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE OFFICER HAD 

PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST [MS. HACE] FOR BEING IN ACTUAL 

PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE 

OF ALCOHOL. 

{¶3} In her three assignments of error, Ms. Hace challenges the trial court’s ruling on 

her motion to suppress. However, because the trial court’s sentencing entry is void, we are 

unable to address the merits of her arguments. 

{¶4} “An appeal is perfected upon the filing of a written notice of appeal. R.C. 

2505.04. Once a case has been appealed, the trial court loses jurisdiction except to take action in 

aid of the appeal.” In re S.J., 106 Ohio St.3d 11, 2005-Ohio-3215, ¶ 9. “[T]he determination as 

to the appropriateness of an appeal lies solely with the appellate court.” Id. at ¶ 10. “The trial 

court retains jurisdiction over issues not inconsistent with the appellate court’s jurisdiction to 

reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment appealed from.” Id. at ¶ 9. 

{¶5} In this case, Ms. Hace filed her original notice of appeal on July 10, 2015. 

Thereafter, she filed a motion to dismiss her appeal on July 28, 2015; however, prior to this 

Court granting that motion, the trial court sentenced Ms. Hace on August 21, 2015. The trial 

court lacked jurisdiction to sentence Ms. Hace while her initial appeal was still pending as doing 
3 

 

so was inconsistent with our jurisdiction. See id. at ¶ 9. Accordingly, the trial court’s August 21, 

2015 sentencing entry is void. See id. at ¶ 15. This Court has the “inherent power to vacate a 

void judgment because such an order simply recognizes the fact that the judgment was always a 

nullity.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Witta, 9th Dist. 

Summit No. 25738, 2011-Ohio-6068, ¶ 20. We exercise that authority and vacate the trial 

court’s August 21, 2015 sentencing entry and remand the matter so that the trial court can 

sentence Ms. Hace. In light of the foregoing, we are unable to address the merits of Ms. Hace’s 

appeal at this time. 

III. 

{¶6} The August 21, 2015 sentencing entry of the Medina Municipal Court is vacated 

and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Judgment vacated, 

and cause remanded. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Medina Municipal 

Court, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 
4 

 

 Costs taxed to Appellee. 

 

 CARLA MOORE 

 FOR THE COURT 

CARR, P. J. 

SCHAFER, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

TIMOTHY J. MURRAY, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

J. MATTHEW LANIER, Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.