[Cite as State v. Ingledue, 2019-Ohio-397.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2018-CA-47 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2017-CR-0189 : CHARLES T. INGLEDUE : (Criminal Appeal from : Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 8th day of February, 2019.
ANDREW P. PICKERING, Atty. Reg. No. 0068770, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
CARLO C. MCGINNIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0019540, 55 Park Avenue, Oakwood, Ohio 45419 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
TUCKER, J. -2-
{¶ 1} Appellant, Charles Ingledue, was sentenced to a term of community control
sanctions (CCS) after pleading guilty to receiving stolen property. The trial court, in
addition to other sanctions, ordered Ingledue to serve a six-month term in the Clark
County Jail. The alternate sentence in the event of a CCS revocation was an 18-month
prison term. After completing the local incarceration, Ingledue admitted that he had
violated three CCS conditions. As a result of Ingledue’s admission, the trial court
ordered him to serve a second six-month term in the Clark County Jail, which term has
been completed. We conclude that the trial court did not have the authority to impose a
second six-month term of local incarceration. However, since the sentence has been
served, there is no meaningful relief that we can fashion, and, as a result, the appeal will
be dismissed as moot.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On April 4, 2017, Ingledue pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, a fourth
degree felony. As noted above, the trial court sentenced Ingledue to a term of CCS, with
one of the conditions being the requirement that he serve six months in the Clark County
Jail. Ingledue was afforded 74 days of jail time credit, and the jail term was completed
some time ago.
{¶ 3} On September 21, 2017, the State initiated a CCS revocation proceeding
against Ingledue, asserting that: 1) he had violated CCS condition 2, which required him
to “keep [his] supervising officer informed of his residence and place of employment”; 2)
he had violated CCS condition 5, which required that he “follow all orders verbal or written -3-
including reporting requirements give[n] to [him] by [his] supervising officer * * * ”; and 3)
he had violated special condition 12(C), which required him to complete a “drug/alcohol
assessment and successfully complete all recommended treatment and aftercare.”
{¶ 4} Ingledue, on February 28, 2018, admitted to the violations. The trial court
had Ingledue screened for admission into a community based correctional facility, but this
avenue was abandoned when Ingledue voiced opposition to such admission. On April
2, 2018, the trial court instead imposed a second six-month term of local incarceration in
the Clark County Jail with Ingledue’s request for jail time credit being denied. This
appeal followed. Ingledue, without requesting a stay, has completed the second six-
month term of local incarceration.
Analysis
{¶ 5} Ingledue has asserted six assignments of error as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO APPELLANT’S PREJUDICE BY
IMPOSING SENTENCE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND
CONTRARY TO LAW.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO APPELLANT’S PREJUDICE
WHEN IMPOSING A SECOND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SANCTION
OF SIX (6) MONTHS IN JAIL IN VIOLATION OF R.C. §2929.16(A)(2).
THEREFORE APPELLANT’S SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED.
FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION: SECTIONS 10 AND 16; ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION. -4-
SPECIFYING AT SENTENCING HEARING, AND IN SENTENCING
ENTRY, A PRISON CONSEQUENCE CONTRARY TO LAW.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT APPELLANT
ALL THE JAIL TIME CREDIT HE WAS ENTITLED TO.
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT
FAILED TO INCLUDE IN SENTENCING ENTRY APPROPRIATE
AMOUNT OF JAIL TIME CREDIT.
OTHER ERRORS WERE COMMITTED AT SENTENCING NOT
RAISED HEREIN BUT APPARENT ON THE RECORD AND THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THE ERRORS DEPRIVED APPELLANT
OF HIS RIGHTS TO FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS
UNDER FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION: SECTIONS 10 AND 16; ARTICLE 1 OF THE
OHIO CONSTITUTION.
Each assignment of error relates, in some fashion, to the trial court’s imposition of the
second six-month term of local incarceration.
{¶ 6} When the initial term of local incarceration was imposed, R.C. 2929.16
provided that a trial court, subject to restrictions not applicable to this discussion, could,
as a community residential sanction, require a defendant sentenced to CCS to serve “up
to six months in jail.” R.C. 2929.16(A)(2).1 The difficulty arises because in April 2018
1 R.C. 2929.15 and R.C. 2929.16 were significantly amended effective October 31, 2018. -5-
when the trial court imposed the second six month jail term, R.C. 2929.15(B) provided
that, upon a CCS violation, a trial court could impose “a more restrictive sanction under
[R.C] 2929.16 * * * .” R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(b). However, since Ingledue had already
served the maximum six-month jail term, the imposition of a second six-month jail term
was not an available more restrictive sanction.2 As such, the trial court was without
authority to impose the second six-month jail term. State v. Bedell, 11th Dist. Portage
No. 2008-P-0044, 2009-Ohio-6031, ¶ 13.
{¶ 7} This being said, Ingledue’s assignments of error all attack the now-served
six-month prison term. This raises the issue of mootness.
{¶ 8} An appeal which challenges a felony conviction is not moot even if a stay
was not requested and the sentence has been served. State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d
224, 643 N.E.2d 109 (1994), syllabus. This is so because “[a] person convicted of a
felony has a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction
of the judgment imposed upon him or her.” Id.
{¶ 9} The analysis is different, however, when the appeal relates not to a
defendant’s felony conviction but, instead, to an already-served sentence. The
mootness doctrine arises from the “long established [premise] that it is the duty of every
judicial tribunal to decide actual controversies between parties legitimately affected by
specific facts and to render judgments which can be carried into effect.” Fortner v.
2 R.C. 2929.15(B)(1) and R.C. 2929.16(A)(6), as amended effective October 31, 2018, allow the imposition of a new six-month jail term. R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(b) states that upon a CCS violation a trial court may impose a more restrictive sanction including “a new jail term * * * pursuant to [R.C. 2929.16(A)(6)].” R.C. 2929.16(A)(6) states that upon a CCS violation a trial court may impose “a new term of up to six months * * * in a jail, which term shall be in addition to any other term imposed under this division.” -6-
Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970). As such, courts should not
decide “purely academic or abstract questions.” James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty, 74
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Ingledue, 2019-Ohio-397.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2018-CA-47 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2017-CR-0189 : CHARLES T. INGLEDUE : (Criminal Appeal from : Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 8th day of February, 2019.
ANDREW P. PICKERING, Atty. Reg. No. 0068770, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
CARLO C. MCGINNIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0019540, 55 Park Avenue, Oakwood, Ohio 45419 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
TUCKER, J. -2-
{¶ 1} Appellant, Charles Ingledue, was sentenced to a term of community control
sanctions (CCS) after pleading guilty to receiving stolen property. The trial court, in
addition to other sanctions, ordered Ingledue to serve a six-month term in the Clark
County Jail. The alternate sentence in the event of a CCS revocation was an 18-month
prison term. After completing the local incarceration, Ingledue admitted that he had
violated three CCS conditions. As a result of Ingledue’s admission, the trial court
ordered him to serve a second six-month term in the Clark County Jail, which term has
been completed. We conclude that the trial court did not have the authority to impose a
second six-month term of local incarceration. However, since the sentence has been
served, there is no meaningful relief that we can fashion, and, as a result, the appeal will
be dismissed as moot.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On April 4, 2017, Ingledue pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, a fourth
degree felony. As noted above, the trial court sentenced Ingledue to a term of CCS, with
one of the conditions being the requirement that he serve six months in the Clark County
Jail. Ingledue was afforded 74 days of jail time credit, and the jail term was completed
some time ago.
{¶ 3} On September 21, 2017, the State initiated a CCS revocation proceeding
against Ingledue, asserting that: 1) he had violated CCS condition 2, which required him
to “keep [his] supervising officer informed of his residence and place of employment”; 2)
he had violated CCS condition 5, which required that he “follow all orders verbal or written -3-
including reporting requirements give[n] to [him] by [his] supervising officer * * * ”; and 3)
he had violated special condition 12(C), which required him to complete a “drug/alcohol
assessment and successfully complete all recommended treatment and aftercare.”
{¶ 4} Ingledue, on February 28, 2018, admitted to the violations. The trial court
had Ingledue screened for admission into a community based correctional facility, but this
avenue was abandoned when Ingledue voiced opposition to such admission. On April
2, 2018, the trial court instead imposed a second six-month term of local incarceration in
the Clark County Jail with Ingledue’s request for jail time credit being denied. This
appeal followed. Ingledue, without requesting a stay, has completed the second six-
month term of local incarceration.
Analysis
{¶ 5} Ingledue has asserted six assignments of error as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO APPELLANT’S PREJUDICE BY
IMPOSING SENTENCE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND
CONTRARY TO LAW.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO APPELLANT’S PREJUDICE
WHEN IMPOSING A SECOND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SANCTION
OF SIX (6) MONTHS IN JAIL IN VIOLATION OF R.C. §2929.16(A)(2).
THEREFORE APPELLANT’S SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED.
FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION: SECTIONS 10 AND 16; ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION. -4-
SPECIFYING AT SENTENCING HEARING, AND IN SENTENCING
ENTRY, A PRISON CONSEQUENCE CONTRARY TO LAW.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT APPELLANT
ALL THE JAIL TIME CREDIT HE WAS ENTITLED TO.
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT
FAILED TO INCLUDE IN SENTENCING ENTRY APPROPRIATE
AMOUNT OF JAIL TIME CREDIT.
OTHER ERRORS WERE COMMITTED AT SENTENCING NOT
RAISED HEREIN BUT APPARENT ON THE RECORD AND THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THE ERRORS DEPRIVED APPELLANT
OF HIS RIGHTS TO FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS
UNDER FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION: SECTIONS 10 AND 16; ARTICLE 1 OF THE
OHIO CONSTITUTION.
Each assignment of error relates, in some fashion, to the trial court’s imposition of the
second six-month term of local incarceration.
{¶ 6} When the initial term of local incarceration was imposed, R.C. 2929.16
provided that a trial court, subject to restrictions not applicable to this discussion, could,
as a community residential sanction, require a defendant sentenced to CCS to serve “up
to six months in jail.” R.C. 2929.16(A)(2).1 The difficulty arises because in April 2018
1 R.C. 2929.15 and R.C. 2929.16 were significantly amended effective October 31, 2018. -5-
when the trial court imposed the second six month jail term, R.C. 2929.15(B) provided
that, upon a CCS violation, a trial court could impose “a more restrictive sanction under
[R.C] 2929.16 * * * .” R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(b). However, since Ingledue had already
served the maximum six-month jail term, the imposition of a second six-month jail term
was not an available more restrictive sanction.2 As such, the trial court was without
authority to impose the second six-month jail term. State v. Bedell, 11th Dist. Portage
No. 2008-P-0044, 2009-Ohio-6031, ¶ 13.
{¶ 7} This being said, Ingledue’s assignments of error all attack the now-served
six-month prison term. This raises the issue of mootness.
{¶ 8} An appeal which challenges a felony conviction is not moot even if a stay
was not requested and the sentence has been served. State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d
224, 643 N.E.2d 109 (1994), syllabus. This is so because “[a] person convicted of a
felony has a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction
of the judgment imposed upon him or her.” Id.
{¶ 9} The analysis is different, however, when the appeal relates not to a
defendant’s felony conviction but, instead, to an already-served sentence. The
mootness doctrine arises from the “long established [premise] that it is the duty of every
judicial tribunal to decide actual controversies between parties legitimately affected by
specific facts and to render judgments which can be carried into effect.” Fortner v.
2 R.C. 2929.15(B)(1) and R.C. 2929.16(A)(6), as amended effective October 31, 2018, allow the imposition of a new six-month jail term. R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(b) states that upon a CCS violation a trial court may impose a more restrictive sanction including “a new jail term * * * pursuant to [R.C. 2929.16(A)(6)].” R.C. 2929.16(A)(6) states that upon a CCS violation a trial court may impose “a new term of up to six months * * * in a jail, which term shall be in addition to any other term imposed under this division.” -6-
Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970). As such, courts should not
decide “purely academic or abstract questions.” James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty, 74
Ohio App.3d 788, 791, 600 N.E.2d 736 (10th Dist.1991), citing Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St.
237, 92 N.E. 21 (1910).
{¶ 10} An appeal attacking an already-served felony sentence is moot when there
is no indication that the sentence, as opposed to the conviction, will cause the defendant
to suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights. State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d
236, 325 N.E.2d 236, 237-238 (1975); State v. Muwwakkil, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-
37, 2018-Ohio-4443, ¶ 7, quoting In re S.J.K., 114 Ohio St.3d 23, 2007-Ohio-2621, 867
N.E.2d 408, ¶ 10. The Eleventh District, in a similar circumstance, concluded that an
“argument relating solely to the imposition of [an already served CCS] jail sentence is * * *
moot.” Bedell, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2008-P-0044, 2009-Ohio-6031, at ¶ 15, citing
State v. Corpening, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2005-A-58, 2006-Ohio-5290, ¶ 6.
{¶ 11} Turning to the pending case, Ingledue has not suggested and we cannot
discern any collateral disability arising from his service of the contested six-month jail
term. We accordingly conclude that, since Ingledue’s appeal only attacks the already-
served second six-month jail term, there is no available remedy, and the appeal is moot.
{¶ 12} Ingledue’s appeal is dismissed as moot.3
3 Assuming he remains on CCS, upon a future CCS violation, Ingledue would be entitled to jail time credit for the jail time and any other confinement he has served. State v. Whited, 12th Dist. Butler No. 2018-04-79, 2019-Ohio-18. Further, Ingledue’s total period of confinement cannot exceed the eighteen month alternate sentence subject to R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii) which, as to a fourth degree felony, limits the prison term imposed after a technical CCS violation to ninety days, subject, of course, to credit for confinement already served. -7-
WELBAUM, P.J. and FROELICH, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Andrew P. Pickering Carlo C. McGinnis Hon. Richard J. O’Neill