State v. GolstonState v. Golston
**** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter‘s Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.
Appellate procedure -- Criminal procedure -- Appeal challenging felony conviction not moot even if entire sentence has been satisfied before the matter is heard on appeal.
A person convicted of a felony has a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the judgment imposed upon him or her. Therefore, an appeal challenging a felony conviction is not moot even if the entire sentence has been satisfied before the matter is heard on appeal. (State v. Wilson [1975], 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 70 O.O.2d 431, 325 N.E.2d 236, and State v. Berndt [1987], 29 Ohio St.3d 3, 29 OBR 173, 504 N.E.2d 712, distinguished; State v. Williams [1992], 80 Ohio App.3d 542, 609 N.E.2d 1307, disapproved.)
Submitted November 2, 1994 -- Decided December 20, 1994.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 62857.
On February 13, 1991, Otis Golston III, appellant, was indicted on two counts of motor vehicle grand theft in violation of
In October 1991, appellant was tried before a jury. The jury found appellant guilty of all charges in the indictment. On October 29, 1991, the trial court sentenced appellant on the two counts of motor vehicle grand theft (counts one and three)
On December 2, 1991, appellant appealed to the court of appeals, seeking reversal of his convictions and sentences. However, on June 14, 1993, the court of appeals dismissed appellant‘s appeal, stating, in part:
“A review of the record indicates that Golston was sentenced by the trial court to a term of one and one-half years each on counts one and three, and a term of one year each on counts two and four, counts two and four to run concurrent with count one. * * * The one and one-half year sentences on counts one and three are deemed to be served concurrently since the trial court did not specify otherwise. * * *
“In the present case, there is no stay of execution in the record. Therefore, Golston‘s effective total sentence of eighteen months was served from November 4, 1991, to May 4, 1993. Additionally, Golston has not presented in the case sub judice ‘any evidence from which an inference can be drawn that he will suffer some collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights.’ State v. Williams (Cuyahoga 1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 542, 543, [609 N.E.2d 1307] * * *. This appeal is therefore dismissed as moot. Id.”
The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a motion for leave to appeal.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Craig T. Weintraub, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc., and William M. Saks, for appellant.
DOUGLAS, J. This court has held that where a criminal defendant, convicted of a misdemeanor, voluntarily satisfies the judgment imposed upon him or her for that offense, an appeal from the conviction is moot unless the defendant has offered evidence from which an inference can be drawn that he or she will suffer some collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights stemming from that conviction. See State v. Wilson (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 70 O.O.2d 431, 325 N.E.2d 236, and State v. Berndt (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 3, 29 OBR 173, 504 N.E.2d 712.
In Wilson, supra, a defendant pled “no contest” to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon, a three-inch straight razor. Carrying such a concealed weapon is a misdemeanor of the first degree. See
In Berndt, supra, a criminal defendant was convicted for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor of the first degree. See
In the case at bar, appellant appealed to the court of appeals seeking reversal of his felony convictions. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as moot since appellant had already served his sentence and had offered no evidence demonstrating that he would suffer some collateral legal disability or loss of civil rights stemming from the challenged convictions. In so holding, the court of appeals relied upon Williams, supra, an Ohio appellate decision which applied the law of Wilson and Berndt to an appeal from a felony conviction. We find that the court of appeals erred in this regard. We hold that the test for mootness outlined in Wilson and Berndt applies only to appeals from misdemeanor convictions.
The Ohio Revised Code contains numerous examples of restrictions imposed upon convicted felons. See, generally, Williams, supra, 80 Ohio App.3d at 543-547, 609 N.E.2d at 1308-1310 (Dyke, P.J., dissenting). For instance, a convicted felon is denied the privilege of serving as a juror, and may never hold an office of “honor, trust, or profit.” See
Given the numerous adverse collateral consequences imposed upon convicted felons, it is clear to us that a person convicted of a felony has a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the judgment imposed upon him or her. Therefore, an appeal challenging a
As a final matter, we note that appellant was convicted of a felony in 1989. Obviously, that conviction predated his convictions in the case at bar. In this vein, appellee urges that since appellant has a prior felony record, appellant will suffer no collateral disabilities resulting from the convictions he seeks to challenge in this appeal. We disagree. Appellant‘s statutory right to seek expungement of the 1989 felony conviction will necessarily be lost if appellant is unable to successfully obtain reversal of his 1991 felony convictions. Further, in our judgment, appellant‘s interest in clearing his name in this case by seeking reversal of the 1991 felony convictions is enough to establish the existence of a justiciable controversy.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court for reinstatement of appellant‘s appeal.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Wright and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. While I agree with the majority that a convicted felon may succumb to certain statutory disabilities resulting from a felony conviction, I am unwilling to follow the majority‘s logic that a convicted felon, simply because of his status, automatically suffers adverse collateral consequences.
In my opinion, in order to maintain an appeal a convicted felon must present evidence that he or she will in fact personally suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment or conviction. Therefore, I would approve the decision of State v. Williams (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 542, 609 N.E.2d 1307, as applied to the facts of this case.
Resnick, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.