COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 65478 : ACCELERATED DOCKET CITY OF WESTLAKE : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION MAUREEN S. BABAKI : : Defendant-Appellant : PER CURIAM : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JUNE 8, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Rocky River Municipal : Court : Case No. 93 CRB 94 JUDGMENT : DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : __________________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: MARY A. LENTZ Acting Law Director City of Westlake 27216 Hilliard Boulevard Westlake, Ohio 44145 For defendant-appellant: C. ANTHONY STAVOLE DWIGHT A. MILLER Attorneys at Law 1604 Illuminating Building Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - PER CURIAM: This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Loc. R. 25, the records from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. The appellant, Maureen S. Babaki, pled "no contest" to a charge of child endangering, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A). Child endangering is a first degree misdemeanor. See R.C. 2919.22(D). The appellant was found guilty of the charge and sentenced to a ninety-day term of incarceration and fined $150, plus court costs. The court suspended the term of incarceration and placed the appellant on active probation for one year. Thereafter, the appellant, through counsel, appealed to this court asserting the trial court erred in finding her guilty of child endangering as the complaint failed to charge an offense. More than two years have elapsed since the time of the appellant's conviction and sentencing. She had completed her sentence and paid her fine by the time her brief was filed in this court. In light of these facts, this court is compelled to dismiss this appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that: *** [w]here a criminal defendant, convicted of a misdemeanor, voluntarily satisfies the - 3 - 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. State v. Golston (1994), ** Ohio St.3d **, citing State v. Wilson (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 236 and State v. Berndt (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 3. The defendant bears the burden of presenting evidence from which an inference can be drawn that she will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment of conviction. State v. Wilson, supra, at 237; State v. Berndt, supra, at 4. A purely hypothetical statement that the existence of the conviction would enhance a penalty in the event that the defendant were convicted of a violation of the same statute is not sufficient to cure an otherwise moot appeal. State v. Berndt, supra, at 4-5 ("*** appellee's statement that the existence of this conviction will enhance his penalty in the event he is again convicted of the same offense *** cannot fairly be described as a collateral disability within the meaning of Wilson, supra, since no such disability will exist if appellee remains within the confines of the law"). Similarly, in the case before us, the appellant has served her sentence and has offered no evidence that she will suffer any collateral harm so long as she remains within the confines of the law. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on the grounds of mootness. - 4 - - 5 - This cause is dismissed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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 Rocky River Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PATRICIA BLACKMON, PRES. JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT, JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, .