In re N.Q.

2024 Ohio 1296

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 5, 2024
• Docket: 2023-CA-16
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re N.Q., 2024-Ohio-1296.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF: N.Q. : : : C.A. No. 2023-CA-16 : : Trial Court Case No. 08-JUV-1333 : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- : Juvenile Division) : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on April 5, 2024

ADDIE J. KING, Attorney for Appellant

ROBERT C. LOGSDON, Attorney for Appellee

.............

LEWIS, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant Pierre Colquitt appeals from a judgment of the Clark County Court

of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division - Juvenile Section which found him in

contempt for failing to pay child support and ordered that he serve 20 days in jail. For the

reasons that follow, we find his appeal to be moot, and it will be dismissed.

I. Facts and Course of Proceedings -2-

{¶ 2} In November 2008, Colquitt was found to be the father of N.Q. and ordered

to pay $61.20 each month in child support. Colquitt failed to meet his obligations, and on

February 20, 2020, the Clark County Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) moved

to have Colquitt held in contempt for “failure to seek work, pay support and arrears.” He

was ordered to appear before a magistrate on April 9, 2020, to show cause why he should

not be found in contempt. The court warned that if he was found in contempt, he could

face fines and jail time in accordance with R.C. 2705.05.

{¶ 3} The April hearing was continued, but on July 9, 2020, Colquitt appeared

(without counsel) before the magistrate. He explained that he had been making regular

payments on his child support until the COVID pandemic prevented him from working.

However, the magistrate found that despite having the ability to pay, Colquitt had failed

to pay a large percentage of his court ordered child support - $6,437.68 - and found him

to be in contempt. He was given a suspended jail sentence and informed that he would

be required pay $61.20 each month; if he did not, that failure “may result in imposition of

the suspended jail sentence.” Magistrate’s Decision and Order at 2.

{¶ 4} It appears that Colquitt did not purge the contempt and was scheduled to

appear before the judge for imposition of sentence on September 14, 2020. He appeared,

but the court set a new date – December 7, 2020. Colquitt did not appear in December,

and the court issued a capias.

{¶ 5} Colquitt had no contact with the Clark County Domestic Relations Court until

March 13, 2023, when he was brought before the court after he was arrested on an

unrelated felony; he had been incarcerated in multiple counties in Ohio and in New York -3-

in the interim. The court found Colquitt had failed to purge himself of contempt and

sentenced him to 20 days in jail to be served concurrently with 30 days imposed in another

case, 00-JUV-0096. He was already in the Clark County Jail awaiting trial on a felony

matter. Colquitt has now served his jail sentence for the contempt.

{¶ 6} Colquitt has filed an appeal that raises two assignments of error. We will

address them in a way that facilitates our analysis.

II. Colquitt’s appeal is moot

{¶ 7} Both of Colquitt’s assignments of error deal with the sentence imposed for

failing to pay child support. In the first assignment of error, Colquitt argues that the court

erred in imposing jail time for non-compliance with the purge provisions, because he had

made some payments but was prevented from making them once he was incarcerated.

The second assignment of error alleges that the court should have determined jail time

credit before imposing sentence. We decline to consider either assignment of error,

however, because the appeal is moot.

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

judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cyran v. Cyran, 152 Ohio St.3d 484, 2018-

Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9, citing Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d

371 (1970); State v. Smith, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27981, 2019-Ohio-3592, ¶ 8. Under

the mootness doctrine, American courts will not decide cases where an actual legal

controversy no longer exists between the parties. Id., citing In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d

572, 2014-Ohio-2597, 13 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 37. “Issues are moot when they lack practical

significance and, instead, present academic or hypothetical questions.” Dibert v. -4-

Carpenter, 2018-Ohio-1054, 98 N.E.3d 350, ¶ 30 (2d Dist.), citing State ex rel. Ford v.

Ruehlman, 149 Ohio St.3d 34, 2016-Ohio-3529, 73 N.E.3d 396, ¶ 55.

{¶ 9} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “[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.” State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 238, 325 N.E.2d 236 (1975).

{¶ 10} The same principle applies in a contempt scenario. An appeal regarding a

contempt sentence is moot after the jail term has been served unless the contemnor can

demonstrate that he or she will suffer a collateral disability or loss of civil rights based on

the finding of contempt. Harris v. Omosule, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2009-CA-78, 2010-Ohio-

1124, ¶ 6; Springfield v. Myers, 43 Ohio App.3d 21, 25-26, 538 N.E.2d 1091 (2d

Dist.1988). This principle applies to both civil and criminal contempt matters. Jenkins v.

Jenkins, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 1986-CA-01, 1987 WL 4782 (Apr. 15, 1987); Bartkowiak

v. Bartkowiak, 4th Dist. Vinton No. 04CA596, 2005-Ohio-5017.

{¶ 11} Here, Colquitt was sentenced on March 13, 2023, to 20 days of

incarceration, to be served concurrently to 30 days in a second case (all while awaiting

trial in a third case), and the sentence was to start immediately. That means his sentence

for this case was completed in April 2023, approximately a year ago. Therefore, absent a

demonstration that some collateral disability or loss of rights resulted from the sentence,

Colquitt’s appeal is moot. He has not made that argument, and thus, we dismiss his

appeal as moot. -5-

III. Conclusion

{¶ 12} Having found the appeal to be moot, it will be dismissed.

WELBAUM, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.