State v. SantiagoState v. Santiago
JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 2, 2015
Luis Santiago, pro se
No. A-653-903
501 Thompson Road
Conneaut, Ohio 44030
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Stephanie Anderson
Brett Hammond
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys
The Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to
{¶2} Defendant-appellant, Luis Santiago, appeals the trial court‘s decision revoking his bond and imposing the maximum prison sentence. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.
{¶3} In January 2014, Santiago was indicted for drug possession, a fifth-degree felony. Following arraignment, Santiago posted bond. A pretrial was set for February 18, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. When Santiago appeared late to his pretrial, the trial court ordered Santiago to submit to an immediate drug test at probation and return to the courtroom. Santiago appeared to probation two hours later and submitted a sample that was determined to be “too dilute.” The trial court revoked Santiago‘s bond.
{¶4} In March 2014, Santiago pleaded no contest to the charge of drug possession, and the trial court found him guilty and ordered probation to prepare a presentence investigation report for sentencing. At sentencing, the court noted Santiago‘s lengthy criminal history, including multiple felonies, which resulted in terms of imprisonment. Santiago was sentenced to the maximum sentence of one year in prison. He did not request a stay of his sentencing pending appeal. Santiago now appeals, raising two assignments of error.
I. Length of Prison Term
{¶6} Santiago does not challenge his plea or overall conviction; rather, he challenges the length of the prison term imposed. We take judicial notice that Santiago was released from prison in January 2015, after serving his entire sentence.
{¶7} It has long been the rule in Ohio that an appeal from a conviction is moot when the offender has completed his sentence and has failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating a collateral disability or loss of civil rights stemming from that conviction. State v. Berndt, 29 Ohio St.3d 3, 504 N.E.2d 712 (1987); State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 325 N.E.2d 236 (1975). But recognizing “the numerous adverse collateral consequences imposed upon convicted felons,” the Supreme Court, in State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 227, 643 N.E.2d 109 (1994), “adopted a conclusive presumption that ‘[a] person convicted of a felony has a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the judgment.‘” Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis, 129 Ohio St.3d 389, 2011-Ohio-2673, 953 N.E.2d 278, ¶ 19, quoting Golston at syllabus. Thus, the court held that “an appeal challenging a felony conviction is not moot even if the entire sentence has been satisfied before the matter is heard on appeal.” Golston at syllabus.
{¶8} The Golston rule recognizes that a convicted felon who has completed his sentence should not suffer the collateral consequences associated with a felony conviction without being afforded an opportunity to challenge that conviction. But that principle is not served, and thus an appeal is moot, when, as here, the appellant challenges only his
{¶9} Accordingly, because Santiago is no longer serving his sentence, there is no remedy this court may provide. Even addressing the merits of this assignment of error, we would find that Santiago‘s sentence is not contrary to law.
{¶10}
{¶11} In this case, Santiago entered a no contest plea and was found guilty of drug possession, a felony of the fifth degree. The trial court noted that Santiago had previously been convicted of multiple felonies, which resulted in a prison sentence. Accordingly, the record demonstrates that Santiago was not entitled to a mandatory period of community control for this offense.
{¶12} We further find that his sentence is not contrary to law because the record supports that trial court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under
{¶13} Accordingly, his sentence was not contrary to law. However, Santiago‘s assignment of error is moot because his prison sentence has been completed.
II. Bond Revocation
{¶14} In his second assignment of error, Santiago contends that the trial court violated his Ohio and United States constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of the law by revoking his bond without good cause shown.
{¶15} After a conviction “‘any error concerning the issue of pretrial bail is moot.‘” State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14, 2006-Ohio-5084, 854 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 206, quoting State v. Patterson, 110 Ohio App.3d 264, 271, 673 N.E.2d 1001 (10th Dist.1996). Santiago‘s remedy at the time that his bond was revoked was to file a writ of habeas corpus. See Patterson at 272, citing State ex rel. Baker v. Troutman, 50 Ohio St.3d 270, 553 N.E.2d 1053 (1990). Santiago did not seek this remedy. Accordingly, his second assignment of error is moot.
{¶16} Dismissed.
It is ordered that the parties share equally in the costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, PRESIDING JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR