State v. Wolfe

2023 Ohio 392

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 10, 2023
• Docket: 2022-CA-12
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Wolfe, 2023-Ohio-392.]

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

STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. No. 2022-CA-12 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 21TRC02924 : JASON P. WOLFE : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court) : Appellant : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on February 10, 2023

DANIELLE E. SOLLARS, Attorney for Appellee

TRAVIS L. KANE, Attorney for Appellant

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

EPLEY, J.

{¶ 1} Jason P. Wolfe appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his community

control sanctions and the imposition of his suspended jail sentence for physical control of

a vehicle while under the influence, a first-degree misdemeanor. Wolfe did not seek a

stay of his jail sentence, and the sentence has been served. Accordingly, this appeal -2-

will be dismissed as moot.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Shortly before midnight on August 4, 2021, Officer Jeremy Wygladalski saw

a red Toyota hatchback repeatedly cross the marked lane and white fog lines as it traveled

southbound on U.S. Route 68 in Xenia Township. After initiating a traffic stop, the officer

approached the driver, Wolfe, who exhibited signs of intoxication and whose breath

smelled of alcohol. Officer Wygladalski asked Wolfe to perform field sobriety tests.

Based on Wolfe’s performance, the officer arrested Wolfe for operating a vehicle under

the influence (OVI). Wolfe subsequently took a breath test, which showed an alcohol

concentration of 0.117g/210L, a result well over the legal limit.

{¶ 3} Wolfe was charged in Xenia Municipal Court with OVI, in violation of R.C.

4511.19(A)(1)(d), a first-degree misdemeanor, and a marked lanes violation, a minor

misdemeanor. The OVI charge was his first OVI offense within the lookback period.

Wolfe subsequently pled guilty to an amended charge of physical control of a vehicle

while under the influence, in violation of R.C. 4511.194, a first-degree misdemeanor.

The trial court imposed 180 days in jail, of which 174 were suspended (with credit for 3

days), a $500 fine, a one-year driver’s license suspension, two years of community

control, and court costs. The conditions of community control included that Wolfe attend

the 3-day “WIP” program, complete the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) victim

impact panel, and complete 25 hours of community service within 60 days.

{¶ 4} Approximately three weeks later, Wolfe’s probation officer informed the trial

court that Wolfe had failed to report as ordered; Wolfe had been sent an order to report -3-

on November 17, but he was arrested the previous night for a new offense (Xenia M.C.

No. 21 CRB 1148). The probation officer noted that Wolfe also had another pending

offense with the court (Case No. 21 CRB 1071). The trial court ordered that Wolfe be

held without bond and that a probation violation hearing be scheduled within 30 days.

A revocation hearing was set for December 14, 2021.

{¶ 5} On December 13, 2021, the probation officer filed a revocation report,

clarifying that Wolfe had violated two conditions of his community control: (1) that he

would immediately report to his probation officer any arrest, citation, violation of the law,

or misconduct, and (2) that he would follow his probation officer’s instructions at all times.

The probation officer indicated that Wolfe initially had reported and signed the conditions

of community control but had failed to report to his next scheduled intake. In addition,

the probation officer noted that Wolfe had a pending charge for assault (Case No. 21 CRB

1071) from the day prior to his sentencing and that Wolfe had since been arrested for

obstructing official business (Case No. 21 CRB 1148). Further, Wolfe had been arrested

for an active warrant from Fairborn Municipal Court (Case No. 21 CRB 1156), and he had

refused to comply with officers. The probation officer had also learned that Montgomery

County detectives would be charging him with new felonies. The probation officer

recommended that Wolfe’s community control be revoked and that his suspended jail

term be imposed.

{¶ 6} At the December 14 revocation hearing, the probation officer testified

regarding Wolfe’s failure to report and the pending charges. He also discussed Wolfe’s

failure to complete any of the conditions of community control, such as community -4-

service, the MADD class, or the WIP program. After speaking with Wolfe, the trial court

continued the revocation hearing for three weeks. The court indicated that it wanted to

see what would happen with the obstruction and assault charges and if Wolfe would be

charged in Montgomery County.

{¶ 7} At the January 4, 2022 hearing, defense counsel informed the trial court that

the Xenia cases remained pending, but she was not aware of any indictment in

Montgomery County. Wolfe had pled in the Fairborn case, which involved a minor

misdemeanor. Counsel argued that Wolfe wanted an opportunity to complete

community control, that he had very limited time to comply with the conditions of

community control prior to his arrest, and that there was not clear and convincing

evidence that he had committed the pending charges. The trial court, however, revoked

Wolfe’s community control, saying that Wolfe had “not done anything [he] needed to do

on that case.” It ordered Wolfe to serve the remainder of his suspended jail sentence,

which the court calculated to be 124 days.

{¶ 8} Wolfe appeals from the revocation of his community control, arguing that the

trial court’s imposition of the maximum jail term was not supported by clear and convincing

evidence. He did not seek a stay of his jail sentence, either in the trial court or in this

court. (The criminal docket statement filed with the notice of appeal indicated that a stay

would be requested, but no motion to stay was filed.)

II. Mootness

{¶ 9} Before we address the merits of his assignment of error, we must consider

whether Wolfe’s appeal from the revocation of his community control is moot. -5-

{¶ 10} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue

judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cyran v. Cyran, 152 Ohio St.3d 484, 2018-

Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9, citing Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d

371 (1970); State v. Smith, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27981, 2019-Ohio-3592, ¶ 8.

Under the mootness doctrine, American courts will not decide cases where an actual legal

controversy no longer exists between the parties. Id., citing In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d

572, 2014-Ohio-2597, 13 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 37. “Issues are moot when they lack practical

significance and, instead, present academic or hypothetical questions.” Dibert v.

Carpenter, 2018-Ohio-1054, 98 N.E.3d 350, ¶ 30 (2d Dist.), citing State ex rel. Ford v.

Ruehlman, 149 Ohio St.3d 34, 2016-Ohio-3529, 73 N.E.3d 396, ¶ 55.

{¶ 11} “An appeal from the revocation of community control is moot where the

defendant has served the jail or prison sentence imposed, and there is no indication that

the defendant is on post-release control or is subject to collateral liability.” State v.

Moughler, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2017-CA-11, 2018-Ohio-1055, ¶ 7.

{¶ 12} In this case, the record reflects that Wolfe has served his jail sentence.

Wolfe began serving the 124-day jail sentence following the January 4, 2022 hearing.

Wolfe acknowledged in a letter to the trial court that he was scheduled to be released in

May 2022. Because Wolfe has finished serving the jail sentence that resulted from the

revocation of his community control, we cannot provide any meaningful remedy, even if

we were to find that his assignment of error has merit. Any error in the revocation of

Wolfe’s community control or in the length of the imposed jail sentence is now moot.

III. Conclusion -6-

{¶ 13} Wolfe’s appeal will be dismissed as moot.

WELBAUM, P.J. and TUCKER, J., concur.