[Cite as State v. Jackson, 2022-Ohio-3481.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

- v -

WILLIAM J. JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellee.

CASE NO. 2021-L-016

Criminal Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2020 CR 000558

O P I N I O N

Decided: September 30, 2022

Judgment: Dismissed

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Jennifer A. McGee, Assistant 

Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, 

Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellant).

Edward M. Heindel, 2200 Terminal Tower, 50 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For 

Defendant-Appellee).

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.

{¶1} Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals the January 26, 2021 judgment of the 

Lake County Court of Common Pleas sentencing appellee, William J. Jackson, to an 

indefinite prison term. Mr. Jackson has filed an appeal also pending before this court as

Case No. 2021-L-018. In light of the disposition of Mr. Jackson’s appeal and as further 

explained below, the state’s appeal is dismissed as moot. 

{¶2} This case stems from a shooting that occurred between Mr. Jackson and 

Vincent “Ace” Anderson in the parking lot of Eastview Meadows Apartments on the 
2

Case No. 2021-L-016

morning of April 26, 2020, purportedly over a drug deal dispute. Mr. Jackson was indicted 

on seven counts: Counts 1 and 2, Attempted Murder, felonies of the first degree, in 

violation of R.C. 2923.02; Counts 3 and 4, Felonious Assault, felonies of the second 

degree, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); Counts 5 and 6, Improperly Discharging a 

Firearm at or Into a Habitation or School Safety Zone, felonies of the second degree, in 

violation of R.C. 2923.161(A)(1); and Count 7, Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor 

Vehicle, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.16(A). Counts 1 through 

6 included firearm specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.145 and discharge specifications 

pursuant to R.C. 2941.146.

{¶3} The case proceeded to jury trial. Mr. Jackson admitted to the shooting but 

maintained that it was done in self-defense, as he believed Mr. Anderson was a threat to 

him and his family. Ultimately, the jury acquitted Mr. Jackson of Counts 2 and 3, but found 

him guilty on the remaining five counts and the corresponding specifications. At the 

subsequent sentencing hearing, the court found that the felonious assault charge in Count 

4 merged with the attempted murder charge in Count 1, and the state elected to proceed 

with sentencing on Count 1. 

{¶4} The court sentenced Mr. Jackson to an indefinite prison term with a 

minimum term of three years and a maximum term of four and one-half years on Count 

1; three years on each of Counts 5 and 6; and 18 months on Count 7, all to be served 

concurrently. Mr. Jackson was also sentenced to an additional term of three years and 

five years as mandatory prison terms for the specifications in Count 1, to be served 

consecutively to each other, for a total of eight years in prison, and to be served prior and 
3

Case No. 2021-L-016

consecutive to the underlying offenses. In all, Mr. Jackson faces a minimum of 11 years 

and a maximum of 12.5 years in prison.

{¶5} The state now appeals, assigning one error for our review, which states:

{¶6} Appellee’s sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

{¶7} Under its sole assignment of error, the state asserts that the trial court was 

statutorily obligated to impose sentences on at least two of the three-year firearm 

specifications of which Mr. Jackson was convicted, in addition to imposing a sentence on 

one five-year discharge specification, and that the imposition of consecutive sentences 

on the five-year discharge specification and the three-year firearm specification failed to 

satisfy the obligation under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g). 

{¶8} However, in Mr. Jackson’s concurrently pending appeal, Case No. 2021-L018, this court determined that the trial court improperly excluded two pieces of evidence 

germane to Mr. Jackson’s claim of self-defense, reversed the judgment of the lower court,

and remanded for further proceedings. As the judgment which the state presently 

appeals has been reversed, this matter has been rendered moot and a review of that

judgment by this court would be improper. See Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio 

St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, ¶84, quoting Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 (1970)

(“Every court must ‘refrain from giving opinions on abstract propositions and * * * avoid 

the imposition by judgment of premature declarations or advice upon potential 

controversies.’”)

{¶9} Accordingly, the state’s appeal is rendered moot and is hereby dismissed.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J., concurs,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J., concurs in judgment only.