State v. Sullivan, 2020 Ohio 1439

Kevin F. Sullivan was charged in Willoughby M.C. with Domestic Violence (against Lisa), Assault (against Amanda), and Violating a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) that prohibited him from being within 500 feet of Lisa.
At trial the jury convicted Sullivan of Assault and Violating the Protection Order, and acquitted him of Domestic Violence; he was sentenced to fines, suspended jail terms, and concurrent probation with a no-contact condition.
The trial court later issued a nunc pro tunc entry to correct earlier judgment entries so they stated both the fact of conviction and the sentence; Sullivan timely appealed that nunc pro tunc order.
Facts relevant to the DVPO: Lisa testified the Diamondback Bar was within 500 feet of her home; police found Sullivan at that bar and an officer estimated the distance by reference to a football field.
Facts relevant to the Assault: Lisa and Amanda testified Sullivan assaulted them after returning intoxicated; Amanda said she struck Sullivan with a chair then was punched repeatedly; Sullivan testified Amanda hit him first, he was knocked down, and he struck back in self-defense; he gave a consistent verbal statement to police.
Sullivan did not seek a stay of sentence pending appeal; the court considered mootness but found the appeal live because fines and court costs remained unpaid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sullivan)	Held
Whether conviction for Violating a Protection Order (R.C. 2919.27(A)(1)) is supported	Officer and Lisa testimony established Sullivan was within 500 feet of Lisa’s home at the Diamondback Bar	Officer’s distance estimate was unreliable without measurements; Sullivan claimed court permission	Affirmed — testimony (officer + Lisa) was sufficient and credible; conviction stands
Whether trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on self-defense for the Assault charge	No legally sufficient evidence to raise self-defense so instruction was unnecessary	Sullivan introduced testimony and a police statement indicating he was first attacked and used force in self-defense	Reversed — trial court erred; self-defense instruction was warranted; assault conviction vacated and remanded for new trial
Whether appeal is moot given completion of jail/probation	Sentence components other than fines were completed, suggesting mootness	Outstanding fines and costs preserve a live controversy	Appeal not moot — unpaid fines/costs keep the appeal justiciable

Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis, 129 Ohio St.3d 389 (2011) (mootness and voluntary satisfaction of misdemeanor sentence)
State v. Berndt, 29 Ohio St.3d 3 (1987) (appellate consideration of moot criminal appeals)
State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224 (1994) (when misdemeanant’s voluntary satisfaction renders an appeal moot absent collateral disability)
In re S.J.K., 114 Ohio St.3d 23 (2007) (definition of collateral legal disability)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and weight of the evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review following Jackson v. Virginia)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (due-process sufficiency standard)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (appellate role as a "thirteenth juror" on weight review)
State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d 15 (1978) (standard for when an affirmative-defense jury instruction is required)
State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (1990) (trial court must fully and completely give all jury instructions relevant and necessary)