Village of Oakwood v. Sexton

Decision Date30 June 1983
Citation10 Ohio App.3d 160,461 N.E.2d 22
Parties, 10 O.B.R. 213 VILLAGE OF OAKWOOD, Appellee, v. SEXTON, Appellant. *
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

Where a defendant is convicted of a criminal offense, violating a speeding ordinance and has voluntarily paid the fine and costs 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 conviction. (State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 325 N.E.2d 236 , followed.)

Joseph Diemert, Jr., Cleveland, for appellee.

James F. Sexton, pro se.

HOFSTETTER, Judge.

This matter is on appeal in a criminal case from a judgment and sentence of the court based on the verdict of the jury finding the defendant-appellant, James F. Sexton, guilty of a speeding violation under Section 333.03 of the Ordinances of the village of Oakwood.

It is clear from the trial court record that all costs and the fine of $100 imposed by the court were paid on December 15, 1981, the date of trial.

No part of the record, including the transcript of proceedings below, suggests that the defendant contended at the time of trial, or at any stage of the appellate proceedings, that the payment of the fine and costs was done under protest or that said payments would result in any collateral disability which would in any manner affect his civil rights.

Further, the appellant acknowledged at oral hearing, on inquiry by the court, that he had paid his fine and costs and that there was nothing in the record that revealed that any protest with regard to the payment of fine and costs was made at the time of trial, pronouncement of sentence, or when said payment was made.

This court, at oral hearing, suggested the possibility of dismissal of the appeal for mootness depending on the content of the record in accordance with State v. Wilson (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 325 N.E.2d 236 . At that time, however, neither the court nor the parties to the appeal knew whether the record clearly disclosed the fact that the fine and costs had been paid.

Although this court has before it no motion to dismiss, as was the case in Wilson, supra, it is axiomatic that a court of appeals will not review matters that are moot. Such a proceeding will ordinarily be dismissed because it is neither the duty nor the responsibility of the court to answer moot questions. Thus, a proceeding will be dismissed if the order or judgment which the appellant seeks to reverse has not been stayed.

The syllabus of State v. Wilson, supra, states:

"Where a defendant, convicted of a criminal offense, has voluntarily paid the fine or completed the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Berndt
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 4 Marzo 1987
    ...loss of civil rights stemming from this conviction. Thus, the appeal is moot under Wilson, supra. See, also, Oakwood v. Sexton (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 160, 10 OBR 213, 461 N.E.2d 22. Based on the foregoing, we hold that where the appellate court hears and decides an appeal that is moot, the ......
  • State v. Berger, L-84-120
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 31 Agosto 1984
    ...Furthermore, "it is neither the duty nor the responsibility of the court [of appeals] to answer moot questions." Oakwood v. Sexton (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 160, 161, 461 N.E.2d 22. We recognize, however, that an important legal issue has been raised by appellant. We present this issue, theref......
  • State v. John E. Thomas
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 27 Enero 1987
    ...some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment or conviction. Wilson, supra, at Syllabus; Berger, supra; Village of Oakwood, supra. Here, although appellant was not convicted of a offense, he was subject to hospitalization as a not guilty by reason of insanity acquite......
  • State v. Johnson, C-870131
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 10 Febrero 1988
    ...(1910), 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21; State v. Berger (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 8, 17 OBR 54, 477 N.E.2d 473; Oakwood v. Sexton (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 160, 10 OBR 213, 461 N.E.2d 22. The mootness of an appeal is a question of no interest to the trial court after it has rendered judgment. It is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT