COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67397/67859 CITY OF CLEVELAND : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION DAVID PETCH : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION MAY 4, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING Criminal appeals from Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 94-CRB-9249 JUDGMENT Dismissed DATE OF JOURNALIZATION APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: CAROLYN W. ALLEN, ESQ. STANLEY E. TOLLIVER, SR., ESQ. Chief Prosecuting Attorney 1464 East 105th Street EDWARD T. BUELOW, Assistant Suite 404 Prosecuting Attorney Cleveland, Ohio 44106 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - JAMES M. PORTER, J., Defendant-appellant David Petch appeals from his conviction following a bench trial in Cleveland Municipal Court for menacing by stalking (R.C. 2903.11) his ex-wife. Defendant claims the conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence and the court erred in interrupting defense counsel's argument and overruling a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. A review of the record indicates that appellant's appeals are moot and therefore should be dismissed. Defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor, therefore, the principle of mootness applies. In State v. Berndt (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 3 at 4, the Ohio Supreme Court stated the rule regarding mootness of an appeal as follows: This court has held that "[w]here 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." State v. Wilson (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 70 O.O.2d 431, 325 N.E.2d 236, syllabus. In the recent case of State v. Golston (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 224, the Court distinguished Berndt and held that the mootness doctrine does not apply to felony offenses. However, the Court stated: "We hold that the test for mootness outlined in Wilson and Berndt applies only to appeals from misdemeanor convictions." Id. at 227. - 3 - In the case herein, defendant was sentenced June 7th, 1994 to 180 days incarceration and a fine of $250 was imposed. The lower court then suspended 150 days of the sentence and $200 of the fine and placed defendant on two years probation. On June 10, 1994, this sentence was stayed pending appeal. On September 7, 1994, the lower court revoked defendant's bond and reinstated the original sentence as defendant violated his parole. The lower court and this Court both denied defendant's motion to reinstate his bond pending appeal, therefore, defendant's sentence expired on March 6, 1995. The record indicates that he paid the $250 fine on February 1, 1995. Defendant has not furnished any evidence from which an inference can be drawn that he will suffer from collateral disability or loss of civil rights as required by State v. Berndt, supra. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as moot. Appeals dismissed. - 4 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for these appeals. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cleveland 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. NUGENT, P.J., and O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. JAMES M. PORTER JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which .