[Cite as State v. Reed , 2021-Ohio-406.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OTTAWA COUNTY

State of Ohio/City of Port Clinton Court of Appeals No. OT-19-0 47 Appellee Trial Court No. TRD1900817B

v. David A. Reed DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: February 12, 2021

* * * * * James J. VanEerten, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alec W. Vogelpohl, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appelle e. Cory B. Kuhlman, for appellant.

* * * * * MAYLE, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, David Reed, appeals the February 6, 2020 judgment of the Ottawa County Municipal Court finding him guilty of operating a n under-speed vehicle in violation of R.C. 4511.214(A)(2). Because we find that this case is moot, we dismiss the appeal.2. I. Background and Facts 1 {¶ 2} On April 2, 2019, Reed was stopped by Officer Essex of the Marb lehead Police Department while driving a golf cart on Memorial Shorewa y in Ottawa County. Essex issued Reed a ticket for violating R.C. 4511.214(A)(2), “ lowspeed-underspeed [sic] vehicle.” {¶ 3} The case was tried to the court on August 7, 2019. The court f ound Reed guilty of violating R.C. 4511.214(A)(2). {¶ 4} On October 25, 2019, the court sentenced Reed to a fine of $10 and court costs, resulting in a total sanction of $125. The record refle cts that Reed paid the entire sanction on October 25, 2019. {¶ 5} On November 8, 2019, Reed filed his notice of appeal. He did n ot file a motion to stay his sentence pending appeal either in the trial court or with this court. {¶ 6} In his brief, Reed raises one assignment of error: The Trial Court erred in its application of O.R.C. Section 4511 .214 by applying it to a private roadway.

1 On August 7, 2019, the parties filed a set of joint stipulatio ns with the trial court that contains more detailed factual information about the case, but there is no indication in the record that the trial court adopted the stipulations. Therefor e, our factual recitation is brief and limited to what is in the traffic citation and the tr ial court’s judgment entry of conviction and sentence.3. II. Law and Analysis {¶ 7} As an initial matter, we must address the argument raised by ap pellee, the city of Port Clinton, that Reed’s appeal is moot. {¶ 8} Under Ohio law, an appeal from a misdemeanor conviction is moot if the defendant voluntarily serves the sentence unless the defendant demonstrates that he will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights arisi ng from the conviction. Toledo

v. Cowans , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-07-1332, 2008-Ohio-2989, ¶ 9, citing State v. Golston , 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 226, 643 N.E.2d 109 (1994). A defendant “vo luntarily” serves his sentence if he does not file a motion to stay the execution of his sentence pending appeal.

Id. Here, the record shows that Reed paid his entire sanction on October 25, 2019—the same day that he was sentenced—without seeking a stay pending a ppeal. Therefore, we find that Reed voluntarily served his sentence. {¶ 9} Because Reed voluntarily served his sentence, in order for us t o consider his appeal, he must provide evidence from which we can infer that h e will “‘suffer some collateral disability or the loss of civil rights’ arising from [his] conviction * * *.” State

v. Hobbs , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1165, 2019-Ohio-5145, ¶ 9, quoting Cleveland Hts. v.

Lewis , 129 Ohio St.3d 389, 2011-Ohio-2673, 953 N.E.2d 278, ¶ 18. Th e defendant bears the burden of producing evidence that he has such a “substantia l stake” in his conviction to pursue an otherwise moot appeal. Golston at 226. Our review of the record shows that Reed has failed to satisfy this burden.4. {¶ 10} Reed devotes his brief to arguing that the road on which he was stopped and cited was a private road, not a public road, and that R.C. 4511.214 does not apply to private roads. He does not, however, argue that he has any sta ke—substantial or otherwise—in his conviction that would allow him to pursue this moot appeal. And when the city raised the issue of mootness in its brief, Reed d id not file a reply brief pointing out a collateral disability or loss of civil rights th at accompanies his conviction. Put simply, Reed failed in his burden to provide any evidence s howing that he will suffer a collateral disability or loss of civil rights. Golston at 226. Accordingly, his appeal is

moot and we will not consider it. 2

III. Conclusion {¶ 11} This appeal is moot as a result of Reed voluntarily completing his sentence and failing to identify a collateral disability or loss of civi l rights associated with his conviction. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal. Reed is order ed to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Appeal dismissed.

2 Even if the case were not moot, we would be compelled to affir m the trial court because Reed did not file a transcript of the August 7, 2019 bench tria l, and “[w]hen portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories , 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980).5. Port Clinton v. Reed C.A. No. OT-19-047

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pur suant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________

________ JUDGE Christine E. Mayle, J.

_______________________________ Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE CONCUR.

_______________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.