State v. Myers

2015 Ohio 4789

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Myers, 2015-Ohio-4789.]

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

STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 26161 : v. : T.C. NO. 13CRB10811 : GENEICE MYERS : (Criminal appeal from : Municipal Court) Defendant-Appellant : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on the ___20th___ day of ____November___, 2015.

STEPHANIE L. COOK, Atty. Reg. No. 0067101 and EBONY N. WREH, Atty, Reg. No. 0080629, Assistant City Prosecutor, 335 W. Third Street, Rm. 372, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

THOMAS B. SCOTT, Atty. Reg. No. 0075341, Suite 2103, 130 W. Second Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

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

DONOVAN, J.

{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on the Notice of Appeal of Geneice Myers,

filed April 8, 2014. Myers was convicted, following a January 23, 2014 bench trial in

Dayton Municipal Court, of one count of telecommunications harassment, in violation of -2-

R.C. 2917.21(B), a misdemeanor of the first degree. She received a sentence of 180

days, with 180 days suspended, and six months of community control sanctions, requiring

25 hours of community service to be completed by July 11, 2014, and basic supervision

for six months. Myers was further ordered to complete a one-day anger management

class through the probation department. Myers was released from community control

on October 27, 2014.

{¶ 2} Myers asserts three assignments of error herein as follows:

THE COURT COMMITTED REVESIBLE ERROR BY DENYING

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL

RULE 29.

And,

THE APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR TELEPHONE

HARASSMENT WAS AGAINTST THE MANIFEST WIGHT OF THE

EVIDENCE.

THE APPELLAN’T CONDUCT DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF

ABUSE, THREAT OR HARASS. (SIC)

{¶ 3} Myers did not seek a stay of her misdemeanor sentence. As this Court has

previously noted:

* * * It is well-settled that “where a criminal defendant, convicted of

a misdemeanor, voluntarily satisfies the judgment imposed upon him or her

for that offense, an appeal from the conviction is moot unless the defendant

has offered evidence from which an inference can be drawn that he or she -3-

will suffer some collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights stemming from

that conviction.” * * *

State v. Byrd, 185 Ohio App.3d 30, 2009-Ohio-5606, 923 N.E.2d 161, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 4} Myers has satisfied her misdemeanor sentence. She did not seek a stay

from the trial court or this Court and offers no evidence of a collateral consequence of her

conviction. Accordingly her moot appeal is dismissed.

..........

FAIN, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.

Copies mailed to:

Stephanie L. Cook Ebony N. Wreh Thomas B. Scott Hon. Christopher D. Roberts