State v. McKinney, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. McKinney, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005)

2005 Ohio 5234

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 30, 2005

DocketNo. 20821.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2005 Ohio 5234 (State v. McKinney, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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State v. McKinney, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005), 2005 Ohio 5234 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant, Robert McKinney, appeals from his convictions for Aggravated Menacing, R.C. 2903.21, and Disorderly Conduct, R.C. 2917.11(A)(1), both being misdemeanor offenses, and the concurrent sentences of incarceration of one hundred eighty days and thirty days imposed on those convictions respectively, pursuant to law.

{¶ 2} On appeal, McKinney presents a single assignment of error, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for Aggravated Menacing. The State argues that McKinney's appeal should be dismissed because the error he assigns is moot. We agree.

{¶ 3} McKinney has voluntarily served the sentences of incarceration the court imposed for his misdemeanor offenses, having sought no stay of execution. Court costs were imposed but suspended by the trial court. The record does not imply that McKinney will suffer any collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights from his convictions. Therefore, there is no relief this court can offer McKinney on the error he assigns, and his appeal is moot and will be dismissed. State v. Elifritz (Feb. 6, 2004), Montgomery App. No. 19603; State v. McCarty (Aug. 5, 2005), Montgomery App. No. 20581.

Donovan, J. and Young, J., concur.

Hon. Frederick N. Young, Retired from the Court of Appeals, Second District, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

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

OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant, Robert McKinney, appeals from his convictions for Aggravated Menacing, R.C. 2903.21, and Disorderly Conduct, R.C. 2917.11(A)(1), both being misdemeanor offenses, and the concurrent sentences of incarceration of one hundred eighty days and thirty days imposed on those convictions respectively, pursuant to law.

{¶ 2} On appeal, McKinney presents a single assignment of error, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for Aggravated Menacing. The State argues that McKinney's appeal should be dismissed because the error he assigns is moot. We agree.

{¶ 3} McKinney has voluntarily served the sentences of incarceration the court imposed for his misdemeanor offenses, having sought no stay of execution. Court costs were imposed but suspended by the trial court. The record does not imply that McKinney will suffer any collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights from his convictions. Therefore, there is no relief this court can offer McKinney on the error he assigns, and his appeal is moot and will be dismissed. State v. Elifritz (Feb. 6, 2004), Montgomery App. No. 19603; State v. McCarty (Aug. 5, 2005), Montgomery App. No. 20581.

Donovan, J. and Young, J., concur.

Hon. Frederick N. Young, Retired from the Court of Appeals, Second District, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2005 Ohio 5234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mckinney-unpublished-decision-9-30-2005-ohioctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack