State v. Wilson, No. 74-390

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: STERN; C. WILLIAM O'NEILL; HERBERT; HERBERT; CELEBREZZE; WILLIAM B. BROWN
• Citation: 41 Ohio St.2d 236,325 N.E.2d 236,70 O.O.2d 431
• Decision Date: 26 March 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-390
• Parties: , 70 O.O.2d 431 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WILSON, Appellant.

Page 236

41 Ohio St.2d 236 325 N.E.2d 236, 70 O.O.2d 431 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee,
v.
WILSON, Appellant. No. 74-390. Supreme Court of Ohio. March 26, 1975.

[325 N.E.2d 237] Syllabus by the Court

Where a defendant, convicted of a criminal offense, has voluntarily paid the fine or completed the sentence for that offense, an appeal is moot when no evidence is offered from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment or conviction.

Appellant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, a three-inch straight razor.

The matter came before the Hamilton County Municipal Court on a motion to suppress the evidence. After the trial court overruled the motion to suppress, the defendant, by his counsel, changed his plea from 'not guilty' to 'no contest.' The trial court found the defendant guilty, and assessed a fine and costs, which the defendant promptly paid. Defendant claimed he would enter the service of the United States Marine Corps the following day. Thereafter, defendant's counsel appealed this case to the Court of Appeals. The state moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that, defendant having paid the fine and costs, the question of his guilt of this charge became moot. The Court of Appeals sustained the state's motion and dismissed the appeal.

The cause is before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Thomas A. Luebbers, City Sol., Paul J. Gorman and J. Anthony Sawyer, Cincinnati, for appellee.

Graham, Schaeffer & Beck and Linder J. Beck, Cincinnati, for appellant.

Page 237

STERN, Justice.

The sole question before this court is whether the payment of a fine and costs in a criminal case renders the conviction moot, so as to preclude review of attack on the conviction or sentence.

The issue of mootness of a criminal case arises only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed upon the basis of the challenged conviction. Cf. St. Pierre v. United States (1943), 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 87 L.Ed. 1199; Fiswick v. United States (1946), 329 U.S. 211, 222, 67 S.Ct. 224, 91 L.Ed. 196. In the case at bar, appellant has failed to show that he has a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the judgment imposed on him.

There have been a number of cases decided in which the serving of a sentence did not render a case moot because the conviction, if allowed to stand, would result in collateral disabilities such as a loss of civil rights. United States v. Morgan (1954), 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248; Byrnes v. United States (C.A.9, 1969), 408 F.2d 599; Carafas v. LaVallee (1968), 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (under state law as result of conviction defendant could not engage in certain businesses, could not serve as an official of a labor union, could not vote in elections, could not serve as a juror); Cordle v. Woody (D.C.Va.1972), 350 F.Supp. 479 (prisoner was eligible for parole on another sentence and misdemeanor conviction might have adverse effect on granting of such parole); Street v. New York (1969), 394 U.S. 576, n. 3, 89 S.Ct. 1354, 22 L.Ed.2d 572 (defendant's employer had instituted proceedings which might result in suspending defendant from work without pay if conviction stood); Fiswick v. United States, supra, 329 U.S. 211, 67 S.Ct. 224, 91 L.Ed. 196 (conviction of an alien could weaken his defense to a deportation proceeding and subject him to the loss of certain civil rights); Avon v. Popa (1953), 96 Ohio App. 147, 150, 121 N.E.2d 254 (it appeared that the fine and costs were paid involuntarily, as under duress to prevent imprisonment).

[325 N.E.2d 238] The record in this...