State v. Potter

2024 Ohio 4652

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 25, 2024
• Docket: C-230424
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Potter, 2024-Ohio-4652.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-230424 TRIAL NO. B-2102609 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : O P I N I O N. AARON POTTER, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Appeal Dismissed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 25, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Glaser Law and Angela J. Glaser, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Aaron Potter appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial erred when it

committed him to competency restoration past the statutory maximum of 365 days.

However, we find that this appeal is moot and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

Factual Background

{¶2} Potter was indicted for two counts of robbery and entered not-guilty

pleas. On multiple occasions throughout the proceedings, Potter was found to be

incompetent and subsequently restored to competency. At a competency hearing on

February 21, 2023, Potter was again found to be incompetent. Potter’s counsel argued

that only 30 days remained of the 365 day limit on the duration of treatment contained

in R.C. 2945.38(C) due to the prior restorative treatment that Potter had received. The

trial court concluded that it could order a new period of restorative treatment for up

to 365 days and ordered that Potter be committed to Summit Behavioral Healthcare

for a period of time not to exceed 365 days. An order finding a party incompetent to

stand trial and committing him or her to an institution is a final appealable order. See

State v. Upshaw, 2006-Ohio-4253, ¶ 19. Potter did not appeal that order.

{¶3} On June 2, 2023, Potter was found competent and entered guilty pleas

to both charges. In exchange, the state reduced the charges from felonies of the second

degree to felonies of the third degree. The court sentenced him to community control.

{¶4} On August 23, 2023, Potter filed a motion for a delayed appeal,

challenging his convictions, which was granted by this court. On September 12, 2023,

Potter was arrested for violating the terms of his community control. On October 25,

2023, the trial court found Potter incompetent and further found that there was not a

substantial probability he would become competent within one year. The court

2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

dismissed “the criminal charges under this indictment number” and directed the court

administrator to file an affidavit in probate court.

{¶5} The sole error advanced in this appeal is whether the trial court erred

when it committed Potter to competency restoration past the statutory maximum of

365 days. The state argues that this appeal is moot because there is no remedy this

court can grant because the indictment was dismissed. During oral argument, Potter

conceded that the appeal is moot.

Mootness

{¶6} Generally, courts will not resolve issues that are moot. See In re L.W.,

2006-Ohio-644, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.). An appeal becomes moot when “the subject matter

of the litigation or dispute is somehow finally resolved, thereby precluding further

action by a court.” State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-2854, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing Wheeling

Corp. v. Columbus, 2001-Ohio-8751, ¶ 175 (10th Dist.) (Tyack, J., dissenting). When

the cause involves no actual, live controversy, and no decision “can definitely affect

existing legal relations,” the case is moot. In re L.W. at ¶ 11. “When an appeal becomes

moot based on an event occurring after the final entry of conviction, the appeal must

be dismissed.” State v. Baird, 2020-Ohio-2717, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Kimbro,

2019-Ohio-1247, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.).

{¶7} In State v. Baird, the defendant appealed an order authorizing the

involuntary administration of medication and treatment to restore him to

competency. Id. at ¶ 1. While the appeal was pending, the trial court determined that

Baird remained incompetent to stand trial and was not likely to be restored to

competency under R.C. 2945.38(H). Id. at 5. The Eighth District Court of Appeals

dismissed the appeal as moot due to the trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

competency could not be restored. Id. at ¶ 11. Ultimately, the court held that it could

provide no relief from the order for forced medication because the order was no longer

in effect. Id.

{¶8} In this case, the trial court dismissed the indictment and charges after

concluding that restoration was not possible within the statutory time frame. Thus,

there is no longer a live case or controversy to be resolved, and we cannot grant any

relief from the convictions because the indictment and charges have been dismissed.

{¶9} Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

Appeal dismissed.

BERGERON and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.

Please note: The court has recorded its own entry this date.