Court Opinion

ID: 9882609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:17:24.206951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:52.024417
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Russell, 2023-Ohio-3547.]

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

State of Ohio                                     Court of Appeals No. WD-23-005

        Appellee                                  Trial Court No. 2020CR0017

v.

Elizabeth Russell                                 DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                 Decided: September 29, 2023

                                              *****

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

        Michael H. Stahl, for appellant.

                                              *****

        SULEK, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Elizabeth Russell, appeals from the January 12, 2023 judgment of

the Wood County Court of Common Pleas ordering her to serve a 180-day jail sanction

for violating the terms of her community control, arguing the trial court improperly

denied her jail-time credit. Because Russell completed her jail sanction and has been

released, her appeal is now moot and is therefore dismissed.
                                     I.      Background

       {¶ 2} On June 16, 2020, Russell pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine, and the

trial court placed her in an intervention in lieu of conviction program under the

supervision of the Wood County Adult Probation Department for a period of two years.

Russell subsequently committed multiple violations of the terms of her intervention. She

stipulated to each of the violations.

       {¶ 3} Due to Russell’s violations, the state moved to revoke her intervention in

lieu of conviction and impose sentence. The trial court placed her on three years of

community control and reserved a 12-month sentence for her cocaine possession

conviction if she violated the terms of her community control. Russell then committed

multiple violations of the terms of her community control, and she stipulated to these

violations as well.

       {¶ 4} On May 5, 2022, the state of Ohio filed a petition seeking revocation of

community control, and Russell was arrested on December 20, 2022. On January 10,

2023, following the hearing on Russell’s violations, the trial court ordered Russell to

serve 180 days in jail for violating the terms of her community control. Although Russell

had been in jail since her December 20, 2022 arrest, the court denied Russell jail-time

credit toward her sanction.

       {¶ 5} Russell filed a notice of appeal on February 1, 2023, and her sole assignment

of error concerns the trial court’s denial of jail-time credit.

2.
       {¶ 6} On July 10, 2023, the state filed a suggestion of mootness pursuant to 6th

Dist.Loc.App.R. 10(I), arguing that the issue of jail-time credit was rendered moot

because she completed her jail sanction related to her community control violations on

June 15, 2023. Russell did not file a response.

                               II.      Assignment of Error

       {¶ 7} Russell asserts the following assignment of error for our review:

              The trial court erred in not granting Ms. Russell credit for the days in

       jail on a warrant with a bond set for violating community control that she

       served prior to her statutorily maximum residential community control

       sanction being imposed, resulting sentence contrary to law.

                                 III.    Law and Analysis

       {¶ 8} In her single assignment or error, Russell argues that the trial court’s order

imposing a 180-day jail sanction for violating community control unlawfully denied her

jail-time credit for the 22 days she served between her arrest and the order date. Relying

on R.C. 2929.16(A)(2), which authorizes a court to issue a jail-time sanction for a

violation of community control of up to six months, Russell contends that because she

was in jail for those 22 days because of her community-control violation, she should

receive credit for those days towards her sanction. Russell further contends that denying

her credit for time she served while awaiting her hearing has the effect of imposing a

3.
sanction of greater than six months in violation of R.C. 2929.16(A)(2). As a result,

Russell argues that her sentence should be modified.

       {¶ 9} The merits of Russell’s assignment of error, however, cannot be addressed

because the completion of her jail-time sanction renders her appeal moot.

       {¶ 10} Although an offender can seek review of a trial court’s refusal to grant jail-

time credit by filing an appeal of the court’s judgment, such an appeal is rendered moot

once the appellant is released. State ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio St.3d 329,

2006-Ohio-6572, 859 N.E.2d 928, ¶ 6; State v. McCormick, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-15-

078, 2016-Ohio-8009, ¶ 9. Because an appeal concerning jail-time credit involves the

appellant’s sentence length, not the underlying conviction, the appellant suffers no

collateral disability or loss of rights that can be addressed by an appellate court once the

sentence has been served. State v. Ambriez, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-04-1382, 2005-Ohio-

5877, ¶ 10.

       {¶ 11} Here, Russell’s appeal solely concerns whether she was entitled to jail-time

credit. Because Russell was released from jail on June 15, 2023, her appeal is now moot

and is therefore dismissed.

4.
                                     IV.    Conclusion

         {¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, Russell’s appeal of the January 12, 2023

judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is dismissed. Russell is ordered

to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

                                                                        Judgment moot and
                                                                          appeal dismissed.

       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/.

5.