State v. Price , 2019 Ohio 705 ( 2019 )

[Cite as State v. Price, 2019-Ohio-705.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 107227
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
QIASA PRICE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
DISMISSED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-18-625624-A
BEFORE: Kilbane, A.J., Boyle, J., and Headen, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 28, 2019
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Matthew O. Williams
Matt Williams, L.L.C.
21055 Lorain Road
Fairview Park, Ohio 44126
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O’Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Carl Mazzone
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center - 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, A.J.:
{¶1} This appeal is before this court on the accelerated docket pursuant to App.R. 11.1
and Loc.App.R. 11.1.
{¶2} Defendant-appellant, Qiasa Price (“Price”), appeals the sentence the trial court
imposed for a first-degree misdemeanor. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal
as moot.
{¶3} In February 2018, Price was charged with one count of aggravated riot in
connection with a fracas outside the Cleveland Heights High School. On April 16, 2018, as part
of a plea agreement, Price pleaded guilty to an amended charge of riot, a first-degree
misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Price to 180 days in jail and imposed a fine of $250,
plus court costs.
{¶4} Price now appeals, assigning the following two errors for review.
Assignment of Error One
The trial court erred as a matter of law and to the prejudice of [Price] when it
imposed a custodial sentence without first considering the appropriateness of a
probationary sentence as required by statute.
Assignment of Error Two
The trial court erred as a matter of law and to the prejudice of [Price] when it
imposed a maximum jail sentence for a misdemeanor conviction without adhering
to the statutory requirements for the imposition of maximum sentences in
misdemeanor cases.
{¶5} Although Price presents two assignments of error, this court will not address them
because the record reflects this appeal is moot.
{¶6} Generally,
[w]here 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
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.
Middleburg Hts. v. McClellan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103212, 2016-Ohio-816, citing State v.
Montavon, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-631, 2013-Ohio-2009, ¶ 6, quoting State v. Wilson, 41
Ohio St.2d 236, 325 N.E.2d 236 (1975), syllabus; see also Lakewood v. Sclimenti, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 101931, 2015-Ohio-1842, ¶ 6.
{¶7} In Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis, 129 Ohio St.3d 389, 2011-Ohio-2673, 953 N.E.2d
278, the Ohio Supreme Court examined the issue of “[w]hether an appeal is rendered moot when
a misdemeanor defendant serves or satisfies [her] sentence after unsuccessfully moving for a stay
of execution in the trial court, but without seeking a stay of execution in the appellate court.” Id.
at 389.
{¶8} The Lewis court explained that in determining whether an appeal is moot, courts
should consider whether the misdemeanant (1) contested the charges at trial; (2) sought a stay of
execution of sentence for the purpose of preventing an intended appeal from being declared
moot; and (3) appealed the conviction. Id. at 394. These circumstances demonstrate that the
sentence is not being served voluntarily because no intent is shown to acquiesce in the judgment
or to intentionally abandon the right of appeal. These circumstances also demonstrate that the
appellant has “a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction.” Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 237,
325 N.E.2d 236. Therefore, there is “subject matter for the court to decide.” In re S.J.K., 114
Ohio St.3d 23, 2007-Ohio-2621, 867 N.E.2d 408,¶ 9.
{¶9} In the instant case, although Price, after pleading guilty to an amended charge and
appealing her conviction, the record indicates she has completed the sentence imposed and
voluntarily paid her fine and court costs. The record also indicates Price did not seek a stay of
execution of the sentence in the trial court or in this court. In addition, Price has not offered this
court any argument that she will be subject to any collateral consequences from her conviction.
{¶10} Based on the foregoing, Price’s appeal is moot.
{¶11} Appeal dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, ADMINSTRATIVE JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, J., and
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J., CONCUR