State v. Hamilton, Unpublished Decision (2-27-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Hamilton, Unpublished Decision (2-27-2002)

DecidedFebruary 27, 2002

DocketC.A. No. 20545.

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Hamilton, Unpublished Decision (2-27-2002) (State v. Hamilton, Unpublished Decision (2-27-2002)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Hamilton, Unpublished Decision (2-27-2002), (Ohio Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made: Appellant-defendant Bennie Lamont Hamilton has appealed his convictions in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas for two counts of domestic violence. This Court affirms.

Hamilton was indicted on two counts of Endangering Children, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1) and (3), and two counts of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). Hamilton was supplementally indicted on one count of child endangering, in violation of R.C.2919.22(B)(2), and three separate counts of child endangering, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1). The first two counts of child endangering were subsequently dismissed.

The matter proceeded to trial. The jury found Hamilton guilty of two counts of domestic violence. The trial court sentenced him accordingly.

Hamilton has appealed, asserting one assignment of error.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS A DEFENSE TO CHILD ENDANGERING UNDER R.C. 2919.22.

In his first assignment of error, Hamilton claims that the trial court erred when it declined to charge the jury that corporal punishment is a defense to endangering children. However, Hamilton was acquitted of child endangering. The doctrine of mootness precludes a further review. An appellate court does not have a duty to decide moot issues. State v.Johnson (Dec. 15, 1993), Summit App. No. 16137, unreported, citing Statev. Johnson (1988), 43 Ohio App.3d 1, 3. Accordingly, Hamilton's assignment of error is overruled as it is moot.

Judgment affirmed.

The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E).

Costs taxed to Appellant.

Exceptions.

BATCHELDER, P.J., WHITMORE, J. CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made: Appellant-defendant Bennie Lamont Hamilton has appealed his convictions in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas for two counts of domestic violence. This Court affirms.

Hamilton was indicted on two counts of Endangering Children, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1) and (3), and two counts of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). Hamilton was supplementally indicted on one count of child endangering, in violation of R.C.2919.22(B)(2), and three separate counts of child endangering, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1). The first two counts of child endangering were subsequently dismissed.

The matter proceeded to trial. The jury found Hamilton guilty of two counts of domestic violence. The trial court sentenced him accordingly.

Hamilton has appealed, asserting one assignment of error.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS A DEFENSE TO CHILD ENDANGERING UNDER R.C. 2919.22.

In his first assignment of error, Hamilton claims that the trial court erred when it declined to charge the jury that corporal punishment is a defense to endangering children. However, Hamilton was acquitted of child endangering. The doctrine of mootness precludes a further review. An appellate court does not have a duty to decide moot issues. State v.Johnson (Dec. 15, 1993), Summit App. No. 16137, unreported, citing Statev. Johnson (1988), 43 Ohio App.3d 1, 3. Accordingly, Hamilton's assignment of error is overruled as it is moot.

Judgment affirmed.

The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E).

Costs taxed to Appellant.

Exceptions.

BATCHELDER, P.J., WHITMORE, J. CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Hamilton, Unpublished Decision (2-27-2002), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hamilton-unpublished-decision-2-27-2002-ohioctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack