State v. Woodley

2024 Ohio 1867

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 14, 2024
• Docket: 2023-CO-48
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Woodley, 2024-Ohio-1867.]

COURT OF APPEALS COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs- : : Sitting by Assignment by the Ohio : Supreme Court : QUAMIRR WOODLEY : Case No. 2023-CO-48 : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Columbiana Municipal Court, Case No. 2022- CRB-01107

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 14, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

SHELLEY M. PRATT MICHAEL P. DUNHAM 135 South Market Street 3383 West 123 Street, Apt. 1 Columbiana County, Case No. 2023-CO-48 2

Lisbon, OH 44432 Cleveland, OH 44111 King, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Qamirr Woodley appeals the October 17, 2023

judgment of conviction and sentence of the Columbiana County Municipal Court. Plaintiff-

Appellee the state of Ohio.

{¶ 2} On June 16, 2022, members of the Liverpool Township Police Department

were dispatched to a residence on Inez Road in East Liverpool for a report of a possible

domestic violence. Upon arrival, Woodley was standing in the driveway and his girlfriend

was sitting in a red SUV. Woodley was smoking marijuana and refused to provide officers

with his information when asked for the same. Woodley stated he had a medical

marijuana card, but also refused to provide officers with verification of that claim. When

officers attempted to detain Woodley, he became combative and a scuffle ensued

between he and the officers. One officer was injured before Woodley was tased,

handcuffed, and taken into custody.

{¶ 3} Woodley was subsequently charged with one count each of resisting arrest

and obstructing official business, misdemeanors of the second degree.

{¶ 4} Woodley pled not guilty to the charges and elected to proceed to a bench

trial which took place on September 14, 2023. At the conclusion of evidence, the trial

court found Woodley guilty as charged. Woodley was sentenced to 10 days jail time on

each count to be served concurrently, and a $250 fine on each count. Our review of the

record reveals Woodley did not request a stay of his sentence pending this appeal.

Further, counsel for Woodley indicates Woodley served the entirety of his sentence. See

reply brief of Defendant-Appellant at 9, footnote 4. Columbiana County, Case No. 2023-CO-48 3

{¶ 5} Woodley filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for

consideration. He raises three assignments of error as follow:

I

{¶ 6} "UNDER OHIO LAW, A PERSON CAN ONLY BE CONVICTED OF

OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS WHEN AN OVERT ACT OCCURS, NOT AN

OMISSION. A SUSPECT CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION

UNLESS THERE IS A REASONABLE SUSPICION. RESISTING ARREST REQUIRES

EITHER FORCE OR RECKLESSNESS IN RESISTANCE TO A LAWFUL ARREST. THE

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING MR. WOODLEY BECAUSE THERE WAS

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT HIM OF THE CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION

OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS AND RESISTING ARREST."

II

{¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING MR. WOODLEY BECAUSE

HIS CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."

III

{¶ 8} "A DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF

COUNSEL. WHEN AN APPOINTED ATTORNEY AND A DEFENDANT HAVE A

BREAKDOWN OF RELATIONSHIP, THEN THE COUNSEL SHOULD BE

SUBSTITUTED. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING MR.

WOODLEY’S REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL."

{¶ 9} Before we may address Woodley's assignments of error, we must first

determine if the appeal is moot. Columbiana County, Case No. 2023-CO-48 4

{¶ 10} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held "[w]here a defendant, convicted of a

criminal offense, has voluntarily paid the fine or completed the sentence for that offense,

an appeal 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. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 325 N.E.2d 236 (1975),

syllabus. This rule is applicable only to misdemeanor convictions as the Supreme Court

of Ohio has held that felony convictions result in collateral disabilities as a matter of law.

State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 643 N.E.2d 109 (1994), syllabus. See also, State v.

Morehouse, 5th Dist. Licking No. 18CA0036 2019-Ohio-884, ¶ 13.

{¶ 11} Woodley's appeal is therefore moot unless he demonstrates he served his

sentences for two second degree misdemeanors involuntarily, or that he suffered some

collateral disability or loss of civil rights. As noted in our statement of facts, Woodley did

not seek a stay of his sentence pending appeal. Further, Woodley's brief is silent as to

question of mootness.

{¶ 12} Because Woodley has served his sentence in this case and has not shown

that he did so involuntarily or that he has or will suffer a collateral consequence due to his

conviction, his three assignments of error are moot. Columbiana County, Case No. 2023-CO-48 5

{¶ 13} The appeal is dismissed.

By King, J.,

Delaney, P.J. and

Baldwin, J. concur.

AJK/rw