STATE OF OHIO, CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN v. KENDALL JONES

{¶2} Beginning on April 30, 2018, criminal complaints were filed against

Appellant, in Case Nos. 18 CRB 773 and 18 CRB 874, on two counts of possession of

drugs, misdemeanors of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(2)(a),

and for falsification, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.13(A)(3).

Notices that Appellant was on community control, in Case No. 17 CRB 635, were also

filed.1 Appellant was appointed counsel and filed time waivers.

{¶3} On June 8, 2018, Appellant stipulated to probable cause for the community

control violation in Case No. 17 CRB 635. On July 31, 2018, Appellant filed oral and

written pleas of guilty to the two possession of drugs charges in Case Nos. 18 CRB 773

and 18 CRB 874. The trial court accepted Appellant’s guilty pleas, concurrently

sentenced him to 180 days in jail on each of the possession of drugs charges, and

dismissed the falsification charge in Case No. 18 CRB 773. In Case No. 18 CRB 874,



1 In Case No. 17 CRB 635, criminal complaints were filed against Appellant on April 10, 2017, for obstructing

official business, a misdemeanor of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A); falsification, a

misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.13(A)(3); and possession of drugs, a

misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(2)(a). On April 20, 2017, Appellant

pled guilty to falsification and possession of drugs. The trial court dismissed the obstructing official business

charge. A community control violation notification was filed on December 5, 2017. On May 29, 2018, a

judgment entry was filed noting that Appellant was arrested on new charges and on a capias for a

community control violation.

– 3 –

Case Nos. 18 MA 0096, 18 MA 0097

Appellant was given 64 days of jail-time credit. In Case No. 17 CRB 635, Appellant was

sentenced to a total of 330 days in jail for the community control violation.

{¶4} Appellant filed timely appeals and raises three assignments of error.2

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GRANT CREDIT FOR ALL

THE TIME THE APPELLANT SERVED WHILE AWAITING HEARING OF

THE PROBATION VIOLATION CHARGES PURSUANT TO R.C.

2967.191.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

THE APPELLANT WAS SENTENCED CONCURRENTLY ON MULTIPLE

CHARGES AND IS ENTITLE[D] TO HAVE CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED

APPLIED TOWARD ALL TERMS.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED [ITS] DISCRETION BY IMPOSING A

SENTENCE DISPROPORTIONATE, CONTRARY TO LAW IN

VIOLATION OF R.C. 2929.21, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE

PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE[S] OF THE OHIO AND

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS.

{¶5} Because Appellant’s three assignments of error all take issue with his

sentence, we will address them together.

Once a defendant has already served his term of incarceration, the merits

of arguments relating to his sentence become moot. See State v. Merritt,

7th Dist. Jefferson No. 09 JE 26, 2011-Ohio-1468, ¶ 50; State v. McCall,

7th Dist. Mahoning No. 03 MA 82, 2004-Ohio-4026, ¶ 7-9; State v. Johnson,

2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27140, 2017-Ohio-4323, ¶ 9-10; State v.

McKinnon, 4th Dist. Ross No. 12CA3337, 2013-Ohio-2324, ¶ 11-13; State



2 Appellant never requested a stay. Appellee, the State of Ohio, City of Youngstown, did not file briefs.

– 4 –

Case Nos. 18 MA 0096, 18 MA 0097

v. Moore, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106647, 2018-Ohio-4778, ¶ 27; State v.

Johnson, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2005-L-208, 2007-Ohio-780, ¶ 7. “‘The proper

response to a moot appeal is the dismissal of the appeal.’” State v.

McKeever, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0038, 2017-Ohio-9387, ¶ 10,

quoting Freedom Mtge Corp. v. Boston, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 14 CO

0036, 2016-Ohio-7016, ¶ 9, citing Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util.

Comm., 103 Ohio St.3d 398, 2004-Ohio-5466, 816 N.E.2d 238, ¶ 28.

State v. Cline, 7th Dist. Monroe No. 18 MO 0007, 2019-Ohio-3476, ¶ 7; see also State v.

Delauder, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 18 CO 0028, 2019-Ohio-1678, ¶ 8, quoting

McKeever, supra, at ¶ 8 (“‘Courts have generally held that once the defendant has been

released from prison, the merits of arguments relating to the trial court’s calculation of his

jail-time credit become moot.’”)

{¶6} There is no evidence that Appellant, Inmate No. 51805, is currently

incarcerated in Ohio. In addition, the Mahoning County Justice Center has confirmed that

Appellant was released on March 5, 2020. “Absent any facts to the contrary we must

presume regularity and assume that [Appellant] has completed his sentence.” McCall,

supra, at ¶ 7.

{¶7} Thus, because Appellant has completed his sentence in these cases, his

arguments concerning the length of his sentence and jail-time credit are moot.

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s appeals from the July 31, 2018

judgments of the Youngstown Municipal Court sentencing him to incarceration in the

Mahoning County Justice Center for possession of drugs, Case Nos. 18 CRB 773 and 18

CRB 874, and for violating the terms of community control, Case No. 17 CRB 635, are

dismissed as moot.