State v. Carlson

2025 Ohio 1200

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 4, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CA-20
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Carlson, 2025-Ohio-1200.]

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

STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. No. 2024-CA-20 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2021 CR 132 : JAMES CARLSON : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellant : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on April 4, 2025

ALANA VAN GUNDY, Attorney for Appellant

KARA N. RICHTER, Attorney for Appellee

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

EPLEY, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant James Carlson appeals from a judgment of the

Champaign County Court of Common Pleas that revoked his community control and

imposed an 11-month prison term. Because he has served his entire prison term and is -2-

not on post-release control supervision, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} In 2021, Carlson was indicted on one count of possession of a fentanyl-

related compound after he overdosed in jail. The case proceeded to a jury trial at which

he was found guilty as charged. Carlson was sentenced to a three-year period of

community control with special conditions such as successfully completing substance

abuse programs and attending mental health counseling.

{¶ 3} Over the next several years, Carlson repeatedly violated the terms of his

community control. Each time, the trial court continued his community control sanctions

with different variations of special conditions designed to help him get and remain sober.

{¶ 4} Finally, in August 2024, after Carlson was unsuccessfully discharged from

two mental health and substance abuse programs, was unsuccessfully terminated from

the West Central Justice Reinvestment Grant Program, and failed to complete community

service, the trial court revoked Carlson’s community control. On September 4, he was

sentenced to 11 months in prison but given more than 200 days of jail time credit.

{¶ 5} Carlson has filed a timely appeal.

II. Mootness

{¶ 6} In his lone assignment of error, Carlson contends that his prison sentence

was excessive and that the trial court should have placed him in “a court-ordered, in-

patient program or unsuccessfully terminated [him] from community control[.]” Because

Carlson has served his sentence, this appeal is moot.

{¶ 7} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue -3-

judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cyran v. Cyran, 2018-Ohio-24, ¶ 9; State v.

Smith, 2019-Ohio-3592, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.). 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., 2014-Ohio-2597, ¶ 37. “Issues are moot when they lack practical

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

Carpenter, 2018-Ohio-1054, ¶ 30 (2d Dist.), citing State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman, 2016-

Ohio-3529, ¶ 55.

{¶ 8} Generally, when a convicted defendant “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 (1975), syllabus; State v. Muwwakkil, 2018-Ohio-4443, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.). “A

collateral disability is an adverse legal consequence of a conviction or judgment that

survives despite the court’s sentence having been satisfied or served.” (Citation omitted.)

In re S.J.K., 2007-Ohio-2621, ¶ 10.

{¶ 9} We have explained that there is no collateral disability or loss of civil rights

under circumstances “where defendants challenge their sentences and not their

convictions, have already completed their sentences, and have not been sentenced to

[post-release control].” State v. Hatfield, 2019-Ohio-3291, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.). In those cases,

we can offer no remedy and therefore the appeal is moot. Id. at ¶ 17. See State v.

Oglesby, 2020-Ohio-394 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 10} In this case, it appears that Carlson completed his prison term in January -4-

2025, and because there is no evidence that he is on post-release control, this Court

cannot offer his requested relief “that he be remanded for sentencing and unsuccessfully

terminated from community control.”

Conclusion

{¶ 11} The appeal is dismissed as moot.

HUFFMAN, J. and HANSEMAN, J., concur.