State v. Popov, 2011 Ohio 372

Popov was convicted of robbery and sentenced to four years in prison, later granted early judicial release conditioned on six months of electronically monitored house arrest and five years of community control.
Popov violated community control by operating a vehicle under the influence, resulting in a new 20-month prison term.
Popov appealed, raising three assignments of error; the third claimed the trial court failed to inform him of his right to appeal the 20-month term, but the court treated this as moot due to delayed appeal.
Popov had been released from prison and began postrelease control; this fact factored into whether the appeal was justiciable.
The court reviewed mootness proceedings, noting extrinsic evidence may be used to determine mootness and concluding Popov’s challenge to the length of sentence was moot once the sentence was served.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the jail-time credit challenge justiciable or moot?	Popov seeks jail-time credit against the 20-month term.	The appeal is moot because Popov has been released and serves postrelease controls.	Moot; no relief available on jail-time credit.
Does failure to inform of appeal rights render the appeal justiciable or moot?	Popov claims error in not informing him of appellate rights.	Delayed appeal renders the issue moot.	Moot; delayed appeal opinion renders issue moot.

State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224 (1994-Ohio-109) (felony conviction appeal not moot; substantial stake survives judgment)
State v. Adams, 2005-Ohio-3837 (Cuyahoga App. No. 85267) (appeal challenging only sentence length is moot after service)
State v. Beamon, 2001-Ohio-8712 (Lake App. No. 2000-L-160) (mootness regarding length of sentence following service)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008-Ohio-3748) (postrelease-control sanctions and limits on prison term per violation)
State v. McCall, 2004-Ohio-4026 (Mahoning App. No. 03 MA 82) (extrinsic evidence may be used to determine mootness)