State v. Damico

2025 Ohio 4968

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 2025-CA-18
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Damico, 2025-Ohio-4968.]

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

STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2025-CA-18 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2022 CRB 00536 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court) WILLIAM E. DAMICO : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & Appellant : OPINION :

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on October 31, 2025, this appeal is

dismissed as moot.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

For the court,

RONALD C. LEWIS, JUDGE

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur. OPINION MIAMI C.A. No. 2025-CA-18

CHRIS BECK, Attorney for Appellant LENEÉ BROSH, Attorney for Appellee

LEWIS, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant William E. Damico appeals from a judgment of the Miami

County Municipal Court that sentenced him to consecutive jail sentences after he violated

the terms and conditions of probation. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal as

moot.

I. Course of Proceedings

{¶ 2} On February 22, 2022, Troy Police Officer Preston Hinger filed two complaints

in the Miami Count Municipal Court alleging that Damico had committed identity fraud, a

first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2913.49, and misuse of a credit card, a first-

degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2913.21. In a supplemental narrative, Officer

Hinger explained that the victim’s debit card, phone charger, and identification card were

stolen from his car on February 18, 2022. The next day, the victim noticed that there were

two $60 transactions on his credit card from the Budget Inn and multiple charges from Door

Dash, a food delivery service. Officer Hinger went to the Budget Inn and discovered

Damico in the room that was rented with the victim’s credit card. After receiving a positive

identification by the hotel manager and confirmation from police dispatch that Damico had

two outstanding warrants, Officer Hinger arrested Damico and took him into custody.

Damico pleaded not guilty to the charges.

{¶ 3} On April 7, 2022, Damico changed his pleas to guilty, and the trial court found

him guilty as charged. After a pre-sentence investigation was ordered, the trial court 2 sentenced Damico to 180-day jail sentences on each of the two counts and ordered the

sentences be served consecutively to each other. The trial court credited Damico with

57 days of jail-time credit and suspended the remaining 123 days of the 180-day jail

sentence on count one. The court also suspended all 180 days of the sentence on count

two. The court placed Damico on two years of community control sanctions.

{¶ 4} Damico was served with a probation violation notice on November 15, 2022.

The notice stated that he had violated condition numbers six and seven by failing to complete

a program and by testing positive for methamphetamines. The probation officer

recommended that the court set the dispositional hearing out for 60 days.

{¶ 5} On December 9, 2022, a probation violation arraignment was held. Damico

stated that he had received a copy of the probation violation notice and admitted the

violations. The trial court accepted Damico’s admission and found that he had violated the

terms and conditions of his probation. The court stated that it would continue Damico on

the same terms and conditions of probation that were previously imposed and delay the

dispositional hearing for 60 days to see how Damico progressed.

{¶ 6} Damico failed to appear for the February 2023 dispositional hearing. Damico

was arrested and attended a May 8, 2023 probation violation arraignment. Damico’s

counsel apologized for Damico missing the February dispositional hearing and explained to

the court that Damico had Covid-19 at that time. Damico’s counsel stated that Damico was

not on probation anywhere else and requested that the dispositional hearing be rescheduled.

{¶ 7} On May 26, 2023, the court held a probation violation dispositional hearing.

The court imposed a 30-day jail sentence and credited Damico with time served. The court

also returned Damico to probation.

3 {¶ 8} On August 9, 2023, the trial court issued a bench warrant for an alleged

probation violation. According to the court’s warrant, Damico had absconded or otherwise

violated the terms of probation and ordered that the time Damico was absent from the

jurisdiction of the court shall not apply against the community control sanction period.

{¶ 9} On October 4, 2023, Damico was served with a probation violation notice in

which he was accused of violating conditions 6 and 17 of his community control by failing to

complete a program, failing to report to his scheduled office appointment, and absconding

from probation. At the probation violation arraignment, Damico admitted that he had

received a copy of the probation violation notice and had violated the terms of his community

control. The trial court accepted his admission and found that he had violated the terms of

his community control. The court imposed 180 days in jail and a term of probation following

service of the 180 days. The court gave him credit for any jail time previously served.

{¶ 10} On November 20, 2023, Damico filed a motion to mitigate in which he asked

that the remainder of his jail time be mitigated. The court found that Damico was serving a

probation violation sanction and overruled his motion to mitigate.

{¶ 11} On December 28, 2023, the trial court suspended the remainder of Damico’s

jail sentence and released him to a representative of Emerge Recovery on January 4, 2024,

for inpatient treatment. The order stated that if Damico failed to successfully complete

treatment, he shall be considered in violation of his probation. The court also stated that

Damico shall be placed on five years of probation from his original sentencing date on the

following conditions: successful completion of inpatient treatment and any other terms and

conditions deemed appropriate by probation.

{¶ 12} On January 28, 2025, Damico was served with a probation violation notice in

which he was accused of violating condition numbers 6, 7, 13, and 17 of his community

4 control. These violations included failing to report to the probation officer, testing positive

for methamphetamine, failing to provide verification of completing mental health treatment,

and failing to report for an office appointment.

{¶ 13} On January 28, 2025, Damico appeared at a probation violation hearing and

admitted to the four alleged violations of his community control. The trial court accepted

his admission and terminated Damico’s probation unsuccessfully. The court reimposed the

original 180-day consecutive sentences and gave Damico credit for the 183 days he

previously served in jail.

{¶ 14} Damico filed a notice of appeal from the January 28, 2025 order. On

March 25, 2025, this court concluded that the trial court had not entered a final order on

January 28, 2025. Therefore, we dismissed Damico’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

{¶ 15} On April 11, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment in which it found Damico

guilty of violations of the terms and conditions of his probation and terminated him from

probation unsuccessfully. The court re-imposed Damico’s original 180-day jail sentences

and ran them consecutively to each other.

{¶ 16} Damico filed a timely notice of appeal from the April 11, 2025 judgment and

the parties filed their appellate briefs. Given the amount of time that passed between the

date Damico began serving his jail sentence and the date on which the appellate briefing

was concluded in this appeal, this court became concerned that Damico’s sole issue raised

on appeal may be moot. On September 12, 2025, this court issued an order to show cause

why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. The parties were given 14 days to file a

response to our order. Neither party filed a response.

5 II. Damico’s Appeal Is Moot

{¶ 17} Damico’s assignment of error states:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY REVOKING APPELLANT’S PROBATION

AND IMPOSING THE SUSPENDED SENTENCE WHEN THE PROBATION

HAD BEEN TERMINATED, THUS DIVESTING THE TRIAL COURT OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.

{¶ 18} Damico contends that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to

impose further jail time when it conducted the January 28, 2025 revocation hearing.

Damico asks this court to reverse the revocation of his probation and imposition of his jail

sentence. We cannot do so under the particular facts of this appeal.

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

that can be carried into effect.” Cyran v. Cyran, 2018-Ohio-24, ¶ 9, citing Fortner v.

Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 (1970). “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. Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of a moot appeal.

State v. Smith, 2019-Ohio-3592, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.). “[A]n appellate court may consider evidence

outside the record in order to dismiss an appeal as moot.” Townsend v. Antioch Univ.,

2009-Ohio-2552, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.), citing Pewitt v. Lorain Correctional Inst., 64 Ohio St.3d 470

(1992).

{¶ 20} Appeals of misdemeanor convictions are considered moot if the defendant has

voluntarily satisfied his sentence, unless the defendant has offered evidence from which an

inference can be drawn that he will suffer some collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights

stemming from that conviction. State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236 (1975), syllabus.

6 A defendant can show that he did not serve a sentence voluntarily if the defendant sought a

stay of the sentence in the trial court to allow for the appeal. Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis, 2011-

Ohio-2673, ¶ 23 (“Thus, a misdemeanant who . . . seeks a stay of execution of sentence

from the trial court for the purpose of preventing an intended appeal from being declared

moot . . . objectively demonstrates 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.”).

{¶ 21} “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.” In re

S.J.K., 2007-Ohio-2621, ¶ 10, citing Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354 (1957). “‘[A]

purely hypothetical statement about what might occur in the future is not sufficient to give

viability to an otherwise moot appeal.’” State v. Moore, 2005-Ohio-4518, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.),

quoting State v. Johnson, 43 Ohio App.3d 1, 3 (1st Dist. 1988).

{¶ 22} According to the Miami County Jail records, Damico was booked into jail on

January 28, 2025, and released from jail on July 24, 2025. These dates establish that

Damico completely served the remaining 177 days of his jail sentences. There is no

evidence in the record that Damico has suffered any collateral disability, and he does not

argue that he has suffered any. Further, Damico did not request a stay of his sentence in

the trial court. Damico’s assignment of error asks us to reverse the trial court’s order that

required him to serve the remainder of his jail sentences. Since he has completely served

his jail sentences, there is no meaningful relief that we could grant him on appeal.

Therefore, the sole issue Damico raises on appeal is moot and we must dismiss his appeal.

7 III. Conclusion

{¶ 23} Having concluded the issue raised by Damico is moot, we dismiss the appeal.

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

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.