Court Opinion

ID: 9910968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 21:11:55.911096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:18.468189
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Edwards, 2023-Ohio-4602.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                   CASE NO. 2023-L-070
CITY OF EASTLAKE,

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,             Criminal Appeal from the
                                                 Willoughby Municipal Court
        - vs -

JUSTIN M. EDWARDS,                               Trial Court No. 2022 CRB 01140

                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                              OPINION

                                    Decided: December 18, 2023
                                    Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Jackie O’Donnell, City of Eastlake Prosecuting Attorney, 35150 Lakeshore Blvd.,
Eastlake, OH 44095 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Cory R. Hinton, 7351 Center Street, Suite 1, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Defendant-
Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Defendant-appellant, Justin M. Edwards (“appellant”), appeals from the

sentence imposed by the Willoughby Municipal Court on June 8, 2023. Appellant asserts

that trial court erred when it ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to a

sentence imposed by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas in a separate and

unrelated case. As appellant has completed the sentence imposed in this case, the

appeal is dismissed as moot.
         {¶2}   On May 23, 2022, a complaint was filed charging appellant with one count

of Assault, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A). The matter

proceeded to a bench trial on April 11, 2023.

         {¶3}   At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found appellant guilty of assault.

Appellant then entered a guilty plea to a separate probation violation. The trial court

proceeded directly to sentencing. The court below noted appellant’s criminal history and

determined there had been a “failure of rehabilitation.” The trial court noted appellant was

on probation at the time he committed the offense, and that he did not take responsibility

for the assault. The trial court determined there was a high likelihood of recidivism.

         {¶4}   The trial court sentenced appellant to 60 days in the Lake County Jail on

the probation violation with credit for 60 days. On the assault case, the trial court imposed

a $250.00 fine and sentenced appellant to 180 days in jail with 30 days suspended.

Appellant was given credit for nine (9) days. The sentence was ordered to be served

consecutively to the sentence imposed by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas in a

separate and unrelated matter. The sentencing entry was filed on June 8, 2023.

According to the record, no motion or request to stay the execution of the sentence was

filed.

         {¶5}   Appellant timely appeals and raises a single assignment of error:

                [1] The trial court erred when it ordered Defendant’s sentence
                to be served consecutively, rather than concurrently, to his
                previously ordered sentence.

         {¶6}   At the time of sentencing, appellant’s trial counsel indicated that appellant

had less than 50 days remaining on his unrelated sentence imposed by the Lake County

Common Pleas Court and had an approximate release date of May 28, 2023. The

                                                2

Case No. 2023-L-070
appellant was sentenced to 150 days on the underlying assault which was ordered to be

served consecutively to the remaining time on the Lake County Common Pleas Court’s

sentence. Assuming appellant began serving his sentence imposed in this case on May

28, 2023, appellant completed his sentence in this case on or about October 16, 2023.1

This Court issued a show cause order on October 31, 2023, regarding the apparent

mootness of the sentencing issue as the sentence was likely served. On November 14,

2023, appellant’s counsel filed a response consenting to the dismissal of the appeal.

       {¶7}    In State v. Biscardi, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2019-P-0003, 2019-Ohio-4653,

¶ 13, this Court noted:

               “‘If an individual has already served his sentence, there is no
               collateral disability or loss of civil rights that can be remedied
               by a modification of the length of that sentence in the absence
               of a reversal of the underlying conviction.’” State v. Coleman,
               11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2019-T-0018, 2019-Ohio-4224, ¶16,
               quoting State v. Beamon, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2000-L-160,
               2001 WL 1602656, *1 (Dec. 14, 2001). Thus, when the prison
               sentence has already been served and the underlying
               conviction is not at issue, an assertion that the trial court erred
               in determining the length of that sentence is a moot issue
               because no relief can be granted. Id. See also State v.
               Anderson, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2003-A-0131, 2005-Ohio-
               4655 (applying the mootness doctrine to an appeal from a
               defendant who had served his entire sentence for violating
               community control but remained on post release control);
               State v. Popov, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 10CA26, 2011-Ohio-
               372, ¶8-9 (stating post release control has no effect on the
               justiciability of an appeal that solely challenges the length of a
               prison term imposed for violating community control).

        {¶8}     Like Biscardi, appellant raises a single assignment of error challenging the

imposition of consecutive sentences. Appellant does not challenge his conviction on the

assault charge. As such, “there is no relief this court can afford appellant.” Id. at ¶ 14.

1. This matter was submitted on the briefs on November 9, 2023.
                                                  3

Case No. 2023-L-070
Moreover, appellant’s November 14, 2023 Response to this Court’s October 31, 2023

Judgment Entry consents to the dismissal of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal pending

before us is moot, and therefore must be dismissed. Id., citing State v. Berdt, 29 Ohio

St.3d 3, 5 (1987).

          {¶9} For the reasons set forth above, the appeal is dismissed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                             4

Case No. 2023-L-070