COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           NO. 85267
 
 
 
STATE OF OHIO
 
          Plaintiff-appellee             JOURNAL ENTRY
 
    vs.                                       AND
 
NATE ADAMS                                  OPINION
 
          Defendant-appellant
 
 
 
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
 OF DECISION:                   JULY 28, 2005
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:        Criminal appeal from Common
                                Pleas Court, Case No. CR403324
 
JUDGMENT:                       Appeal dismissed.
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
 
APPEARANCES:
 
 
For plaintiff-appellee:         WILLIAM D. MASON, ESQ.
                                CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR
                                BRIAN M. MCDONOUGH, ESQ.
                                Assistant County Prosecutor
                                The Justice Center, 8th Floor
                                1200 Ontario Street
                                Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
For defendant-appellant:        ROBERT L. TOBIK, ESQ.
                                CUYAHOGA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER
                                NOELLE A. POWELL, ESQ.
                                Assistant County Public Defender
                                1200 West Third Street, N.W.
                                100 Lakeside Place
                                Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -2-
 
 
KARPINSKI, J.:
 
     Defendant appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court.
 
For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
 
     On July 21, 2004, defendant pled guilty to amended indictments
 
in two cases: Case No. CR-380201, possession of drugs1 in violation
 
of R.C. 2925.11 and Case No. CR-403324, preparation of drugs for
 
sale2 in violation of R.C. 2925.07. Both offenses are fifth degree
 
felonies.
 
     Defendant was sentenced on August 18, 2004. He received a
 
six-month prison term in each case. Both sentences were run
 
concurrent to one another. After sentencing, defendant filed this
 
appeal in which he presents a single assignment of error:
 
     THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING A PRISON SENTENCE FOR
     A FELONY OF THE FIFTH DEGREE WITHOUT FIRST MAKING THE
     PROPER FINDINGS.
 
     Defendant argues that his six-month sentence is infirm because
 
the trial court failed to make the required findings set forth in
 
R.C. 2929.13(B). Before addressing the merits of defendant's sole
 
assignment of error, however, we must first determine the viability
 
of this appeal.
 
     "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
 
 
 
     1Twenty-one (21) rocks of crack cocaine.
 
     2Sixty rocks (60) of crack cocaine.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -3-
 
     defendant will suffer some collateral disability or loss
     of civil rights from such judgment or conviction."
 
State v. Hardwick, Cuyahoga App. No. 83604, 2004-Ohio-5857, at ¶5,
 
citing State v. Wilson (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 236, 325 N.E.2d 236,
 
at syllabus.
 
     When a defendant has already served his sentence, any issue
 
related to that sentence on appeal is moot.     State v. Barcomb,
 
Cuyahoga App. No. 80196, 2002-Ohio-4435, citing State v. Pompei
 
Cuyahoga App. No. 79541, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5052, at *2-3.
 
     "If an individual has already served his sentence, there is no
 
collateral disability or loss of civil rights that can be remedied
 
by a modification of the length of the sentence in the absence of
 
a reversal of the underlying conviction. *** [And] no relief can be
 
granted by this court subsequent to the completion of the sentence
 
if the underlying conviction itself is not at issue."     State v.
 
Bostic, Cuyahoga App. No. 84842, 2005-Ohio-2184, at ¶22.
 
     In the case at bar, defendant is not appealing any issue
 
related to his underlying conviction. He is appealing only the
 
length of the sentences he received.
 
     Defendant received two concurrent six-month sentences. He
 
started serving those sentences on August 23, 2004. According to
 
the state, defendant completed his six-month term on February 10,
 
2005. FollowingHardwick, therefore, because defendant has already
 
served his sentence, his sole assignment of error, which is related
 
exclusively to the sentences he received, is now moot.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                         -4-
 
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -5-
 
     It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs
 
herein taxed.
 
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate
 
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
 
 
 
  ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J., AND
 
 KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR.
 
 
 
 
                                         DIANE KARPINSKI
                                              JUDGE
 
 
 
 
     N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision.
See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision
will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the
court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration
with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10)
days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period
for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the
journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the
clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section
2(A)(1).
 
.