State v. Roush
2022 Ohio 1965
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In Feb 2020 Roush used her deceased boyfriend’s credit cards; she was later indicted on 11 counts of identity fraud.
- She sought intervention in lieu of conviction; the trial court denied ILC.
- Roush pleaded guilty to five counts (four fifth-degree felonies and one fourth-degree felony) in exchange for dismissal of remaining counts and a restitution obligation of $8,704.22.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent prison terms totaling 18 months, awarded 42 days credit, and orally stated only that all counts carry postrelease control up to three years.
- The written judgment entry included more detailed postrelease-control language, but the court did not orally advise Roush of the consequences of violating postrelease control as required.
- The State concedes the advisement error; however, the appellate court found the appeal moot because Roush fully served her sentence and is not on postrelease control, so no practical remedy remains.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly advised the defendant of the consequences of violating postrelease control under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) | State concedes the trial court failed to orally advise the consequences and requests remand for proper advisement | Roush contends she must be properly advised and seeks remand for correct postrelease-control notification | Court acknowledged the advisement error but dismissed the appeal as moot because Roush completed her sentence and was not placed on postrelease control; no effective remedy available |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel’s procedure for raising and withdrawing from frivolous appeals)
- Cyran v. Cyran, 152 Ohio St.3d 484, 97 N.E.3d 487 (describes courts’ role and the definition of mootness)
- Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 257 N.E.2d 371 (basic statement on judicial function and justiciability)
- State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman, 149 Ohio St.3d 34, 73 N.E.3d 396 (discusses when issues lack practical significance and are moot)
- Dibert v. Carpenter, 98 N.E.3d 350 (application of mootness principles in criminal-sentence appeals)