State v. Streets

2025 Ohio 2598

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 24, 2025
• Docket: 114683
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Streets, 2025-Ohio-2598.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114683 v. :

MICHAEL STREETS, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: DISMISSED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 24, 2025

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-23-685323-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Patituce & Associates, LLC, and Joseph C. Patituce, for appellant.

DEENA R. CALABRESE, J.:

Defendant-appellant Michael Streets (“Streets”) appeals the trial court’s

denial of his motion to modify a condition of community control, which requires monitoring of all electronic devices he uses for personal or work use. For the reasons

set forth below, we dismiss his appeal.

I. Facts

In fall 2019, Streets was a 31-year-old advisor for the Bay Village High

School robotics team. The victim, S.W., was a 17-year-old high school senior on the

team. Starting in early November 2019, Streets began contacting S.W. via text and

Snapchat that “took [on] sexual undertones.” Streets and S.W. met up with each

other four times outside of school, and at least two of those meetings involved sexual

activity. The relationship ended after two months. Streets began to harass S.W.

while she was away at college. She told the trial court that “on at least two different

occasions [Streets] called [S.W.] with fake numbers [and] used a fake voice to ensure

that she was on the phone before revealing his true voice and letting her know that

it was him.” These telephone calls led to S.W. reporting the 2019 relationship to

police.

II. Procedural History

On October 2, 2023, Streets was indicted on two counts of sexual

battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(7), both felonies of the third degree. On

August 13, 2024, as part of a plea agreement, Streets entered a guilty plea to both

counts as amended to sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A)(1), both

misdemeanors of the third degree. Sentencing was held on the same day. 1 The trial

1 A presentence investigation was not completed. court sentenced Streets to 60 days in the Cuyahoga County Jail on each count, to be

served consecutively, and suspended the sentence. The trial court also ordered him

to register as a Tier 1 sex offender, pay a fine, and serve community control. The

trial court made the following findings regarding community-control sanctions:

It is therefore ordered that the defendant is sentenced to two years of community control on each count, under the supervision of the adult probation department’s sex offender unit with the following conditions:

1.) Defendant to abide by all rules and regulations of the probation department.

2.) Report as directed by probation officer.

3.) Submit to sex offender assessment, which may include polygraph examination.

4.) Successfully complete sex offender counseling as indicated by sex offender assessment.

5.) Subject to polygraph examinations as recommended by treatment team.

6.) Follow all additional recommendations of treatment team.

7.) Attend additional programming as indicated in case plan.

8.) Defendant is ordered to pay a monthly supervision fee of $20.

9.) Random drug testing.

10.) Conditions and terms of probation are subject to modification by the probation officer and approval of the court.

On September 17, 2024, the trial court issued an order that “at the

request of the probation [department], [Streets] is ordered to participate in the IPPC

pilot project.” On September 30, 2024, at Streets’s request, the trial court

transferred his supervision to the Trumbull County Probation Department, Sex Offender Unit. On October 29, 2024, Streets filed a motion to modify the conditions

of probation, asking the trial court to eliminate the monitoring of all electronic

devices he uses as required by the IPPC pilot project. The trial court overruled

Streets’s motion on December 5, 2024, stating that he “is required to comply with

all condition[s] of probation.”

This appeal, filed on December 20, 2024, stems from the denial of

Streets’s motion to modify the conditions of probation. Streets raises a single

assignment of error for our review:

The trial court abused its discretion after sentencing in ordering appellant to participate in the IPPC pilot project mandating that any electronic device he possess[es] be monitored and recorded by a third party despite the condition having no relation to the offense in which he was convicted.

III. Law and Analysis

In his sole assignment of error, Streets argues that the trial court abused

its discretion when it ordered him to participate in the IPPC pilot project mandating

that all electronic devices he uses be monitored.

App.R. 4(A)(1) provides that “a party who wishes to appeal from an

order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3

within 30 days of that entry.”

Streets’s appeal is limited to the December 5, 2024 denial of his motion

to modify the conditions of probation, where he moved the trial court to remove the

IPPC pilot project as a condition of his probation. Although Streets timely filed a

notice of appeal of the denial of the motion, his sole assignment of error argues that the trial court erred when it imposed this condition of probation. The record reflects

that the IPPC pilot project condition of community control was imposed by the trial

court on September 17, 2024.

Because the sole assignment of error pertains to the imposition of a

condition of community control that predates the December 5, 2024 denial of his

motion, the issue is outside the scope of the instant appeal. Cleveland v. Sabetta,

2021-Ohio-4426, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Davis, 2017-Ohio-7713, ¶ 16 (8th

Dist.).

Further, Streets could have challenged the imposition of the

additional community-control sanction on direct appeal. However, he did not

appeal the trial court’s September 17, 2024 order. Because Streets’s core argument

in the present appeal pertains to a purported error in the imposition of an additional

community-control sanction, it is now untimely and barred by the doctrine of res

judicata. “Res judicata bars the consideration of issues that could have been raised

on direct appeal.” Sabetta at ¶ 17, citing State v. Turner, 2018-Ohio-2730, ¶ 6 (8th

Dist.), citing State v. Saxon, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 16-17.

The record suggests Streets is attempting to “bootstrap” this appeal by

challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify conditions of community

control.

‘“Bootstrapping’ is ‘the utilization of a subsequent order to indirectly and untimely appeal a prior order that was never directly appealed.’ State v. Williamson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102320, 2015-Ohio-5135, ¶ 9. Such attempt is ‘procedurally anomalous and inconsistent with the appellate rules that contemplate a direct relationship between the order from which the appeal is taken and the error assigned as a result of that order’ and is disfavored. Williamson, citing State v. Church, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68590, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4838 (Nov. 2, 1995); Bd. of Health v. Petro, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104882, 2017-Ohio- 1164, ¶ 12 (noting this court’s consistent declination to consider bootstrapped claims).”

Sabetta at ¶ 19, quoting State v. Bhambra, 2017-Ohio-8485, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.).

Because Streets’s present appeal amounts to an attempt at

bootstrapping a claim that is now time barred, we are without jurisdiction to

consider the appeal. Sabetta at ¶ 22, citing Bhambra at ¶ 13, citing State v. Cottrell,

2010-Ohio-5254, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.), and App.R. 4.

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.

DEENA R. CALABRESE, JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR