[Cite as State v. Norris, 2022-Ohio-2681.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 111092
v. :
TASHALEE NORRIS, :
Defendant-Appellant :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: DISMISSED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 4, 2022
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-19-641415-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brandon A. Piteo, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
James R. Willis and Clarissa A. Smith, for appellant.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
Appellant Tashalee Norris (“Norris”) appeals from the trial court’s
order that denied her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. For the reasons that
follow, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Factual and Procedural History
On March 21, 2019, the police arrested Norris, and the case was
docketed with the Rocky River Municipal Court as Case No. 19CRA0768. On
July 30, 2019, the case was bound over to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas and docketed as Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-19-641415-A.
On July 30, 2019, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Norris on
Count 1, robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1), a felony of the second degree
with a one-year firearm specification and Count 2, theft, in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree.
The indictment stemmed from two incidents that occurred on or
about February 27, 2019, and March 21, 2019. On those dates, Norris allegedly
attempted to leave Walmart with various items for which she had not paid.
Specifically, the state claimed Norris exited through the self-checkout counter and
did not scan all the items she placed in her bag. On the day of the March 21, 2019
incident, Norris was dressed in her Cleveland Division of Police uniform and carried
her work-issued firearm.
On August 13, 2019, Norris pleaded not guilty to the indictment. The
parties conducted discovery, and the court set a November 10, 2020 trial date. On
the scheduled trial date, the court conducted a pretrial hearing and spoke with
Norris about the state’s proposed plea agreement whereby Norris would plead guilty
to one count of theft and relinquish her Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy (“OPOTA”) certification. Norris declined to accept the plea agreement and
expressed her preference to proceed to trial.
Due to Covid-19 protocols, trial was continued until May 24, 2021.
On that date, the state advised the court that newly discovered screen shots of the
Walmart surveillance video indicated that at least one of the incidents at issue may
have occurred during Norris’s work hours. The state also advised that the Cleveland
Division of Police’s Internal Affairs Department was investigating the validity of the
new information and the results of that investigation could lead to charges of theft
in office against Norris. The trial court referenced the applicable statute,
R.C. 2921.41, and informed Norris that the potential sanctions associated with a
charge of theft in office include the government’s ability to withdraw the cost of the
investigation from the worker’s pension. Further, the trial court noted the state’s
intention to pursue theft in office charges regardless of the outcome of Norris’s trial.
The proposed plea agreement included the state’s promise not to pursue theft in
office charges.
After conferring with her counsel and her boyfriend, Norris accepted
the plea agreement rather than proceeding to trial. Norris retracted her former plea
and pleaded guilty to an amended Count 1, theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(4),
a misdemeanor of the first degree, and Count 2, theft, in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree. As part of the plea agreement,
Norris agreed to no contact with the victim, Walmart; payment of restitution in the
amount of $80.25; relinquishment of her peace officer status by voluntarily surrendering her OPOTA certification; and resignation from the Cleveland Division
of Police. The state agreed to amend Count 1 and cease any investigation or
prosecution of theft in office charges. The trial court imposed 6 months of
community control sanctions on each count and payment of court costs. Upon
Norris’s payment in full of all costs, fees, and restitution, the court would consider
early termination of the community control sanctions.
On July 7, 2021, Norris filed a motion to terminate probation. On
July 22, 2021, the Ohio Attorney General’s office issued a notice of acceptance of
Norris’s voluntary surrender of her OPOTA certification and stated she was
permanently prohibited from performing the function of a peace officer in the state
of Ohio. On July 28, 2021, the court docketed a journal entry that found Norris in
compliance with the plea and sentencing agreement and granted her motion to
terminate community control sanctions.
On November 5, 2021, Norris filed a motion to withdraw her guilty
plea. Norris supported her motion with affidavits from herself and three
individuals. On November 8, 2021, the trial court ordered a copy of the plea hearing
and sentencing transcript. On November 9, 2021, before the state filed a responsive
brief, the trial court denied Norris’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
On December 8, 2021, Norris filed a timely notice of appeal that
presents the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion to vacate her guilty plea without a hearing and this denial violated her right to due process. Legal Analysis
Norris argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied
her motion to withdraw her guilty plea and when it did not hold a hearing on the
motion. Before we can address Norris’s assignment of error, we must determine if
this court has jurisdiction over this appeal.
When a defendant voluntarily completes her sentence for a
misdemeanor offense, an appeal from that judgment is moot “‘when no evidence is
offered from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant will suffer some
collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment or conviction.’” State
v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 226, 643 N.E.2d 109 (1994), quoting State v. Wilson,
41 Ohio St.2d 236, 325 N.E.2d 236 (1975), syllabus. The defendant must
demonstrate she did not voluntarily complete the sentence and she is subject to
collateral disability or loss of civil rights. Golston, quoting Wilson at 237. “A
collateral disability is an adverse legal consequence of a conviction or judgment that
survives despite the court’s sentence having been satisfied or served.” Solon v.
Bollin-Booth, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97099, 2012-Ohio-815, ¶ 11, citing In re S.J.K.,
114 Ohio St.3d 23, 2007-Ohio-2621, 867 N.E.2d 408, ¶ 10. See also Cleveland Hts.
v. Lewis, 129 Ohio St.3d 389, 2011-Ohio-2673, 953 N.E.2d 278, ¶ 29-33 (Stratton,
J., concurring) (listing various collateral consequences of a misdemeanor
conviction). A defendant does not voluntarily complete her sentence pending
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Norris, 2022-Ohio-2681.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 111092
v. :
TASHALEE NORRIS, :
Defendant-Appellant :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: DISMISSED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 4, 2022
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-19-641415-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brandon A. Piteo, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
James R. Willis and Clarissa A. Smith, for appellant.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
Appellant Tashalee Norris (“Norris”) appeals from the trial court’s
order that denied her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. For the reasons that
follow, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Factual and Procedural History
On March 21, 2019, the police arrested Norris, and the case was
docketed with the Rocky River Municipal Court as Case No. 19CRA0768. On
July 30, 2019, the case was bound over to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas and docketed as Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-19-641415-A.
On July 30, 2019, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Norris on
Count 1, robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1), a felony of the second degree
with a one-year firearm specification and Count 2, theft, in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree.
The indictment stemmed from two incidents that occurred on or
about February 27, 2019, and March 21, 2019. On those dates, Norris allegedly
attempted to leave Walmart with various items for which she had not paid.
Specifically, the state claimed Norris exited through the self-checkout counter and
did not scan all the items she placed in her bag. On the day of the March 21, 2019
incident, Norris was dressed in her Cleveland Division of Police uniform and carried
her work-issued firearm.
On August 13, 2019, Norris pleaded not guilty to the indictment. The
parties conducted discovery, and the court set a November 10, 2020 trial date. On
the scheduled trial date, the court conducted a pretrial hearing and spoke with
Norris about the state’s proposed plea agreement whereby Norris would plead guilty
to one count of theft and relinquish her Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy (“OPOTA”) certification. Norris declined to accept the plea agreement and
expressed her preference to proceed to trial.
Due to Covid-19 protocols, trial was continued until May 24, 2021.
On that date, the state advised the court that newly discovered screen shots of the
Walmart surveillance video indicated that at least one of the incidents at issue may
have occurred during Norris’s work hours. The state also advised that the Cleveland
Division of Police’s Internal Affairs Department was investigating the validity of the
new information and the results of that investigation could lead to charges of theft
in office against Norris. The trial court referenced the applicable statute,
R.C. 2921.41, and informed Norris that the potential sanctions associated with a
charge of theft in office include the government’s ability to withdraw the cost of the
investigation from the worker’s pension. Further, the trial court noted the state’s
intention to pursue theft in office charges regardless of the outcome of Norris’s trial.
The proposed plea agreement included the state’s promise not to pursue theft in
office charges.
After conferring with her counsel and her boyfriend, Norris accepted
the plea agreement rather than proceeding to trial. Norris retracted her former plea
and pleaded guilty to an amended Count 1, theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(4),
a misdemeanor of the first degree, and Count 2, theft, in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree. As part of the plea agreement,
Norris agreed to no contact with the victim, Walmart; payment of restitution in the
amount of $80.25; relinquishment of her peace officer status by voluntarily surrendering her OPOTA certification; and resignation from the Cleveland Division
of Police. The state agreed to amend Count 1 and cease any investigation or
prosecution of theft in office charges. The trial court imposed 6 months of
community control sanctions on each count and payment of court costs. Upon
Norris’s payment in full of all costs, fees, and restitution, the court would consider
early termination of the community control sanctions.
On July 7, 2021, Norris filed a motion to terminate probation. On
July 22, 2021, the Ohio Attorney General’s office issued a notice of acceptance of
Norris’s voluntary surrender of her OPOTA certification and stated she was
permanently prohibited from performing the function of a peace officer in the state
of Ohio. On July 28, 2021, the court docketed a journal entry that found Norris in
compliance with the plea and sentencing agreement and granted her motion to
terminate community control sanctions.
On November 5, 2021, Norris filed a motion to withdraw her guilty
plea. Norris supported her motion with affidavits from herself and three
individuals. On November 8, 2021, the trial court ordered a copy of the plea hearing
and sentencing transcript. On November 9, 2021, before the state filed a responsive
brief, the trial court denied Norris’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
On December 8, 2021, Norris filed a timely notice of appeal that
presents the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion to vacate her guilty plea without a hearing and this denial violated her right to due process. Legal Analysis
Norris argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied
her motion to withdraw her guilty plea and when it did not hold a hearing on the
motion. Before we can address Norris’s assignment of error, we must determine if
this court has jurisdiction over this appeal.
When a defendant voluntarily completes her sentence for a
misdemeanor offense, an appeal from that judgment is moot “‘when no evidence is
offered from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant will suffer some
collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment or conviction.’” State
v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 226, 643 N.E.2d 109 (1994), quoting State v. Wilson,
41 Ohio St.2d 236, 325 N.E.2d 236 (1975), syllabus. The defendant must
demonstrate she did not voluntarily complete the sentence and she is subject to
collateral disability or loss of civil rights. Golston, quoting Wilson at 237. “A
collateral disability is an adverse legal consequence of a conviction or judgment that
survives despite the court’s sentence having been satisfied or served.” Solon v.
Bollin-Booth, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97099, 2012-Ohio-815, ¶ 11, citing In re S.J.K.,
114 Ohio St.3d 23, 2007-Ohio-2621, 867 N.E.2d 408, ¶ 10. See also Cleveland Hts.
v. Lewis, 129 Ohio St.3d 389, 2011-Ohio-2673, 953 N.E.2d 278, ¶ 29-33 (Stratton,
J., concurring) (listing various collateral consequences of a misdemeanor
conviction). A defendant does not voluntarily complete her sentence pending
appeal where the defendant “neither acquiesced in the judgment nor abandoned
[her] right to appeal.” Lewis at ¶ 3. Here, Norris acquiesced in the judgment and
abandoned her direct appeal. Norris accepted the proffered plea agreement and
agreed to resign from the Cleveland Division of Police, relinquish her OPOTA
certification, and pay restitution and court costs with the understanding that the
state would amend the robbery charge with a firearm specification to a
misdemeanor theft offense and discontinue its investigation and potential pursuit
of theft in office charges. Norris satisfied her sentence, the court terminated her
community control sanctions, and no direct appeal was filed. Approximately three
months after termination of her community control sanctions, Norris filed a motion
to withdraw her guilty plea that the court denied four days later. Norris then
appealed the trial court’s denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
Further, there is nothing in the record or Norris’s brief that shows
collateral consequences exist. Norris’s relinquishment of her OPOTA certification
and her resignation were part of the plea agreement — direct consequences of her
guilty plea — and do not equate to collateral consequences that defeat mootness.
State v. Poppel, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2020-CA-34, 2021-Ohio-2536, 11, quoting
George v. Black, 732 F.2d 108, 110 (8th Cir.1984), quoting Cuthrell v. Director,
Patuxent Inst., 475 F.2d 1364, 1366 (4th Cir.1973) (a direct consequence of a guilty
plea is one that is definite, immediate, and largely automatic). Norris satisfied the sentence imposed pursuant to her misdemeanor
conviction and paid all court costs and restitution. There is no ongoing or future
penalty from which this court can grant relief. Norris’s appeal is moot, and this court
has no jurisdiction over the case. Bollin-Booth, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97099,
2012-Ohio-815 at ¶ 6, fn. 2 (“A court has no jurisdiction to decide moot cases because
there is no subject matter upon which the court's decision could operate.”).
Appeal dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
__________________________________ MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III., P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR