State v. Doseck

2024 Ohio 199

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 22, 2024
• Docket: 8-23-13
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Doseck, 2024-Ohio-199.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 8-23-13 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

GARY A. DOSECK, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 22 06 0133

Appeal Dismissed

Date of Decision: January 22, 2024

APPEARANCES:

Christopher Bazeley for Appellant

Erin G. Rosen for Appellee Case No. 8-23-13

MILLER, J.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Gary Doseck (“Doseck”), appeals the June 7,

2023 judgment entry issued by the Logan County Court of Common Pleas

sentencing him for a community control violation. For the reasons that follow, we

dismiss Doseck’s appeal as moot.

{¶2} In December of 2022, Doseck pleaded guilty to one fifth-degree felony

count of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03, and one fifth-degree

felony count of possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.11. The State

dismissed a third charge as part of a plea agreement. On January 5, 2023, the trial

court sentenced Doseck to five years of community control. At the sentencing

hearing, the judge informed Doseck that, in the alternative to community control,

Doseck’s convictions on the two counts were subject to prison terms of 12 months

each and that the court reserved the right to order the prison terms to be served

consecutively.

{¶3} Doseck subsequently violated certain terms and conditions of his

community control. On May 22, 2023, the trial court sentenced Doseck to remain

on community control with the additional condition that he complete an in-patient

substance abuse treatment program at the West Central Community Based

Correctional Facility. At this sentencing hearing, the judge once again informed

-2- Case No. 8-23-13

Doseck that, in the alternative to community control, Doseck’s convictions on the

two counts were subject to consecutive prison terms of 12 months for each count.

{¶4} West Central Community Based Correctional Facility denied Doseck

from participating in the in-patient substance abuse treatment program for medical

reasons. Therefore, the trial court held a re-sentencing hearing on June 7, 2023.

The same day, the trial court entered a judgment entry stating, in part:

[T]his court previously imposed a suspended prison term of twelve (12) months under count one, trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), 2925.03(C)(4)(a), a felony of the fifth degree; and a prison term of Twelve (12) months under count three, possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), 2925.11(C)(4)(a), a felony of the fifth degree.

The court finds that a prison term is consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and that Community Control is hereby revoked and terminated. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that Defendant Gary A. Doseck shall serve a stated prison term of Twelve (12) months under count one * * * and a prison term of Twelve (12) months under count three * * * to be served concurrently.

Defendant is hereby conveyed to the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Credit for Two Hundred Twenty- two (222) days is granted as of this hearing date, along with future custody days while Defendant awaits transportation to the appropriate state institution.

(Emphasis added.) (June 7, 2023 Judgment Entry).

{¶5} Doseck then filed his appeal, raising a single assignment of error for our

review:

-3- Case No. 8-23-13

Assignment of Error

The trial court’s sentence of incarceration was strikingly inconsistent with the R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors.

Doseck asks that we vacate his sentence, arguing the trial court arbitrarily applied

the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. He argues the trial court

rendered a sentence of incarceration that “is strikingly inconsistent with those

factors when it initially sentenced [him] to continued community control but

sixteen-days later resentenced him to incarceration because he was not medically

able to enroll in drug treatment.” (Appellant’s Brief).

{¶6} In our review, the record shows that Doseck did not request a stay of

the execution of his sentence either in the trial court or in this court. Additionally,

a review of the transcript from the June 7, 2023 resentencing hearing shows: the

judge ordered Doseck be taken into custody and transported to prison; Doseck’s

counsel requested a 24-hour furlough; and the judge denied that request and again

informed Doseck he would be taken into custody and transported directly to prison

because the judge did not trust Doseck to report to the jail the next day in a sober

condition.

{¶7} Given the 222 days of jail time credit, the trial court’s sentence resulted

in a remaining prison term of 143 days as of June 7, 2023. Thus, as shown in the

July 19, 2023 Notice of Calculation of Sentence filed in the record, Doseck’s

expected release date was October 28, 2023.

-4- Case No. 8-23-13

{¶8} Therefore, the record supports Doseck’s sentence has been completed.

Accordingly, we cannot provide Doseck with his requested relief. Because Doseck

does not challenge the underlying convictions, but instead only challenges the

sentence he has already completed, this appeal is moot. See State v. Scott, 3d Dist.

Allen Nos. 1-21-41, 1-21-42, and 1-21-43, 2022-Ohio-745, ¶ 12 (“[w]hen a sentence

has been completed, a challenge to the length of the sentence is moot because there

is no relief to be given”); State v. Keckler, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-13-16, 2013-

Ohio-5493, ¶ 9 (“‘[i]f an individual has already served his sentence, there is no

collateral disability or loss of civil rights that can be remedied by a modification of

the length of that sentence in the absence of a reversal of the underlying

conviction’”), quoting State v. Beamon, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2000-L-160, 2001 WL

1602656, * 1 (Dec. 14, 2001); State v. Adams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102387,

2015-Ohio-3883, ¶ 5-6 (assignments of error challenging sentence were moot

because defendant was no longer serving his challenged jail sentence so the court

could not provide a remedy).

{¶9} For the foregoing reasons, Doseck’s appeal is dismissed as moot.

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.

/hls

-5-