[Cite as State v. Kirk , 2020-Ohio-696.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee

v. DOMINIQUE A. KIRK Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : : Appellate Case No. 28353 Trial Court Case No. 2019-CRB-209W (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 28th day of February, 2020.

. . . . . . . . . . . RONALD LEWIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0061980, Assistant Prosecuting Att orney, New Lebanon Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 195 South Clayton Road , New Lebanon, Ohio 45345 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN A. FISCHER, Atty. Reg. No. 0068346, 70 Birch Alley, Suite 240, Beavercreek, Ohio 45440 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

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

DONOVAN, J.-2- {¶ 1} Dominique A. Kirk appeals from an April 3, 2019 judgment entry which found him guilty on his guilty plea of failure to comply with an orde r or signal of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B), a misdemeanor of the first de gree. The court sentenced Kirk to 180 days in jail with credit for eight days served. {¶ 2} Kirk was charged by way of complaint on February 22, 2019 in th e Montgomery County Municipal Court in New Lebanon. On April 3, 2019, he entered his guilty plea in exchange for the dismissal of a charge of domest ic violence in Montgomery M.C. No. 2018 CRB 1434 and of another charge of failure to comp ly in Montgomery M.C. No. 2019 CRB 226. {¶ 3} We have taken judicial notice of the municipal court’s website in the instant matter to note that on April 11, 2019, the municipal court issu ed an order for drug intervention for Kirk at S.T.O.P for 90 days. A subsequent ent ry on April 29, 2019, reflects that Kirk escaped from S.T.O.P. on April 26, 2019, and he was arrested on the same day. The court then vacated the entry granting S.T.O.P. a nd ordered Kirk to be returned to jail to serve the balance of his sentence (150 days ). Serving 150 days from April 26, 2019, Kirk would have been released on September 23, 2019. {¶ 4} Kirk asserts three assignments of error herein as follows: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED MR. KIRK TO A MAXIMUM JAIL TERM BASED ON UNKNOWN AND UNNAMED INDIVIDUALS WHO APPARENTLY HA D RUN FROM POLICE AND HIT BUSES. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE.-3- THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO PERSONALLY ADDRESS MR. KIRK AND GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK REGARDING THE SENTENCE. {¶ 5} Kirk’s assignments of error are primarily directed to his sente ncing only. Since Kirk has finished serving his jail sentence, we cannot pr ovide any meaningful remedy. See State v. Robinson , 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 26712, 26713, 2016-Ohio3277, ¶ 4. “We cannot restore to him any of the time he spent in jail on this conviction.” State v. MacConnell , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25437, 2013-Ohio-4947, ¶ 9. Consequently, this appeal is moot. See id ; State v. Kinnison , 2d Dist. Darke No. 2010 CA 1, 2011-Ohio-6324, ¶ 7; State v. Money, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2009 CA 119, 2010-Ohio6225, ¶ 25. {¶ 6} Because this appeal is moot, it is dismissed.

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

HALL, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.

Copies sent to: Ronald Lewis John A. Fischer Hon. James D. Piergies