Opinion
2022-CA-58
07-07-2023
STATE OF OHIO Appellee v. JOSEPH VAUGHAN Appellant
MEGAN A. HAMMOND, Attorney for Appellee J. DAVID TURNER, Attorney for Appellant
Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court Trial Court Case No. 2020CR0769
MEGAN A. HAMMOND, Attorney for Appellee
J. DAVID TURNER, Attorney for Appellant
OPINION
TUCKER, J.
{¶ 1} Joseph Vaughan appeals from the trial court's judgment finding him in violation of his community control, ordering him to serve 55 days of a previously-suspended 180-day jail sentence, and continuing him on community control.
{¶ 2} Vaughan contends the State failed to prove that he violated his community control by testing positive for methamphetamine and by failing to complete anger- management and drug/alcohol classes.
{¶ 3} The present appeal is moot because Vaughan has served his 55-day jail term, which is the only new sanction the trial court imposed for the violations it found. Under these circumstances, there is no relief that we can provide. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed on the basis of mootness.
I. Background
{¶ 4} Vaughan was indicted for felony domestic violence in 2020. He later pled guilty to an amended charge of assault, a first-degree misdemeanor. The trial court imposed and suspended a 180-day jail sentence and a $1,000 fine on condition that Vaughan complete two years of monitored time. In 2022, the trial court revoked monitored time and placed him on community control after finding that he had committed multiple driving-related offenses.
{¶ 5} In September and October 2022, Vaughan was charged with violating his community control by testing positive for methamphetamine, failing to complete anger-management and drug/alcohol classes, and failing to report to his probation officer as scheduled. Following a hearing, a magistrate found that the violations had been proven. The magistrate continued Vaughan on community control but ordered him to serve 55 days of his previously-suspended 180-day jail term. The magistrate's October 20, 2022 decision remanded Vaughan into custody to begin serving the sentence. Vaughan filed no objections, and the trial court approved and adopted the magistrate's decision in its own judgment entry.
II. Analysis
{¶ 6} Vaughan challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove two of the three violations found by the magistrate. Specifically, he contends the State failed to prove a positive methamphetamine test or his failure to complete anger-management and drug/alcohol classes. With regard to methamphetamine, he claims the only evidence came from a probation officer who did not witness the test or see the results. As for the required classes, he claims his time to complete them had not expired.
{¶ 7} In response, the State alleges that Vaughan's appeal is moot because he has completed the 55-day jail sentence imposed by the magistrate. On the merits, the State asserts that we are limited to plain-error review and that the evidence establishes the violations found by the magistrate. Vaughan has not filed a reply brief or addressed the mootness issue.
{¶ 8} Upon review, we agree with the State that Vaughan's appeal is moot. After finding three violations, the magistrate continued him on community control as previously imposed. The only new sanction appears to have been the 55-day jail sentence. The magistrate ordered Vaughan remanded into custody to begin serving that sentence on October 20, 2022, while giving him credit for 27 days already served. Simple arithmetic establishes that the jail sentence expired by its own terms in mid-November 2022.
Accompanying the State's May 16, 2023 amended brief is what purports to be a printout of a web page from "Justiceweb.org" showing that Vaughan was released from jail on November 17, 2022. The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that an event causing a case to become moot may be proven by extrinsic evidence. See Pewitt v. Lorain Corr. Inst., 64 Ohio St.3d 470, 472, 597 N.E.2d 92 (1992). The Ohio Supreme Court also has accessed the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's website to find a case moot based on a defendant's completing his term of incarceration. State ex rel. Brown v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 139 Ohio St.3d 433, 2014-Ohio-2348, 12 N.E.3d 1187, ¶ 2. Although Vaughan has not challenged the print-out attached to the State's amended brief, we need not rely on the "Justiceweb.org" page. As noted above, simple arithmetic establishes the fact of his release.
{¶ 9} "A case becomes moot when something happens that makes it impossible for the court to grant the requested relief." State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, 159 Ohio St.3d 277, 2020-Ohio-1253, 150 N.E.3d 99, ¶ 5. Here, the specific relief Vaughan requests is for us to "reverse the findings that [he] violated the terms of his community control." See Appellant's Brief at 8. But this court's function under App.R. 12(A) is to affirm, reverse, or modify judgments, not findings.
{¶ 10} After finding that Vaughan had violated the terms of his community control, the trial court entered a judgment that did two things: (1) continued him on community control as previously imposed and (2) ordered him to serve a jail sentence. Even if we found merit in Vaughan's challenge to the violations at issue, he still would remain on the pre-existing community control, which the trial court did not revoke. Near the conclusion of the revocation hearing, Vaughan and his attorney specifically asked the magistrate to return him to community control and to deny revocation, which is what the magistrate and the trial court did. Again, the only aspect of the judgment on appeal impacted by the violations at issue was the imposition of a jail term that Vaughan has served. Under these circumstances, his appeal is moot.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 11} For the reasons set forth above, Vaughan's appeal is dismissed as moot.
EPLEY, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.