Court Opinion

ID: 9899918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 21:09:36.616525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:54.478598
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Burtis, 2023-Ohio-4162.]

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

State of Ohio                                     Court of Appeals No. WD-22-048

        Appellee                                  Trial Court No. 2022CR0130

v.

Ronald K. Burtis                                  DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                 Decided: November 17, 2023

                                             *****

        Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and
        David T. Harold, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Dan M. Weiss, for appellant.

                                             *****
        SULEK, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant Ronald Burtis appeals from the July 14, 2022 judgment of the

Wood County Court of Common Pleas, convicting him following his plea of guilty to one

count of forgery and sentencing him to 16 months in prison. On appeal, Burtis argues

that the trial court failed to properly consider the principles and purposes of sentencing

under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12 when

imposing its sentence. Because Burtis has completed his sanction and has been released,

his appeal is now moot and is therefore dismissed.
                    I. Factual Background and Procedural History

       {¶ 2} On April 21, 2022, the Wood County Grand Jury indicted Burtis on one

count of counterfeiting in violation of R.C. 2913.30(B)(2) and (C), a felony of the fourth

degree, and one count of forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3) and (C)(1)(c)(i), a

felony of the fourth degree. On May 23, 2022, Burtis pleaded guilty to the count of

forgery. In exchange, the state agreed to dismiss the count of counterfeiting.

       {¶ 3} At the sentencing hearing on July 11, 2022, the trial court considered the

record, all oral statements, the presentence investigation report, the victim’s impact

statement, Burtis’s financial information, the principles and purposes of sentencing, and

the seriousness and recidivism factors. The court determined that because the victim

suffered psychological harm as a result of the offense, because Burtis was on post-release

control at the time, has a history of criminal convictions, and has not responded favorably

to prior sanctions for criminal conduct, and because Burtis has no stable housing, no

support system, and does not want to change his criminal behavior, Burtis is not

amenable to community control. Thus, the trial court sentenced Burtis to 16 months in

prison, with credit for 113 days served.

2.
                                 II. Assignment of Error

       {¶ 4} Burtis timely appealed his judgment of conviction, asserting one assignment

of error for review:

              1. The trial court failed to comply with the principles and purposes

       of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 and appellant’s sentence should be

       vacated.

                               III. Suggestion of Mootness

       {¶ 5} On August 17, 2023, the state filed its combined appellate brief and

suggestion of mootness. 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 10(I) provides,

       If any party believes that the appeal has become moot, the party shall

       address the issue in its brief. * * * The opposing party may file a response

       to the suggestion of mootness within the 14-day period provided by App.R.

       15.

Attached to the state’s brief was a printout from Burtis’s Offender Search page created by

the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, indicating that Burtis was released

from prison on July 8, 2023. Burtis has not responded to the state’s suggestion of

mootness.

                                       IV. Analysis

       {¶ 6} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue

judgments that can be carried into effect.” State v. Smith, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-22-

053, 2023-Ohio-1779, ¶ 14, quoting Cyran v. Cyran, 152 Ohio St.3d 484, 2018-Ohio-24,

3.
97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9. “American courts will not decide cases in which there is no longer

an actual legal controversy between the parties. * * * Thus, when parties lack a legally

cognizable interest in the outcome, a case becomes moot.” (Internal quotations omitted.)

Id., quoting Cyran at ¶ 9. “Evidence that a case is moot can come from outside the

record.” Id. at ¶ 13, quoting Darr v. Livingston, 2017-Ohio-841, 85 N.E.3d 1260, ¶ 16

(10th Dist.).

       {¶ 7} “A person convicted of a felony has a substantial stake in the judgment of

conviction which survives the satisfaction of the judgment imposed upon him or her.

Therefore, an appeal challenging a felony conviction is not moot even if the entire

sentence has been satisfied before the matter is heard on appeal.” State v. Strohl, 6th

Dist. Wood No. WD-05-049, 2006-Ohio-1639, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Golston, 71 Ohio

St.3d 224, 643 N.E.2d 109 (1994), syllabus.

       {¶ 8} Here, however, Burtis does not challenge his underlying conviction.

Instead, he only challenges the trial court’s sentencing decision. “Since appellant only

challenges the length of [his] term of incarceration and not the underlying conviction, we

need not hear the appeal if ‘no evidence is offered from which an inference can be drawn

that the defendant will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such

judgment or conviction.’” Id. at ¶ 8, quoting State v. Ambriez, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-04-

1382, 2005-Ohio-5877, ¶ 9; State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 325 N.E.2d 236 (1975),

syllabus (“Where a defendant, convicted of a criminal offense, has voluntarily paid the

fine or completed the sentence for that offense, an appeal is moot when no evidence is

4.
offered from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant will suffer some

collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment or conviction.”).

       {¶ 9} In Strohl, this court held that an appeal from a judgment imposing a nine-

month prison term was moot where the appellant argued that a nine-month prison

sentence was contrary to law and unsupported by the record, and where the term had been

served and the appellant released from prison. Strohl at ¶ 3, 9; see also Ambriez at ¶ 3-4,

10 (appeal challenging imposition of consecutive sentences is moot where the sentence is

served and the defendant has been released from prison and not subjected to post-release

control).

       {¶ 10} Accordingly, because Burtis only challenges the trial court’s imposition of

sentence and because Burtis has completely served that sentence and been released from

prison, his appeal is now moot and is therefore dismissed.

                                      IV. Conclusion

       {¶ 11} For the foregoing reasons, Burtis’s appeal of the judgment of the Wood

County Court of Common Pleas is dismissed. Burtis is ordered to pay the costs of this

appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

                                                                           Appeal dismissed.

5.
                                                                           State of Ohio v.
                                                                             Ronald Burtis
                                                                      C.A. No. WD-22-048

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

Christine E. Mayle, J.                           ____________________________
                                                           JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, P.J.
                                                 ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J.                                       JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                 ____________________________
                                                           JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

6.