From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re M.F.

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
Dec 17, 2020
2020 Ohio 6745 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

Opinion

No. 109666 No. 109667

12-17-2020

IN RE M.F. A Minor Child

Appearances: Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Lauren Hammersmith, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant. Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Catherine Coleman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.


JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: DISMISSED Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division
Case Nos. DL17114502 and DL16109093 Appearances: Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Lauren Hammersmith, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant. Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Catherine Coleman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, A.J.:

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant M.F. ("appellant") brings the instant appeal challenging the juvenile court's judgment denying her credit for time served in confinement. Specifically, appellant argues that the juvenile court erred in concluding that she was not entitled to 126 days credit for the time she spent at the Carrington Youth Academy ("Carrington"). For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶ 2} This matter has been before us on two prior occasions, to wit: In re M.F., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 107452 and 107455, 2019-Ohio-709 ("In re M.F. I"), and In re M.F., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 108502 and 108503 ("In re M.F. II"). In re M.F. I was remanded for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding whether time at Carrington constituted "confinement" for purposes of the statute. Following remand, the juvenile court held the appropriate hearing; however, the wrong standard was applied in the court's analysis of "secured facility." We therefore remanded the case again in In re M.F. II for the court to "make findings concerning the nature of [Carrington's] security procedures and the staff members' control regarding appellant's personal liberties." The juvenile court was directed to utilize the testimony elicited at the previously held evidentiary hearing to examine the security measures employed by Carrington to ensure the safety of the surrounding community and the control that Carrington's staff members have over the personal liberties of the juveniles. In re M.F. II at ¶ 21.

The underlying facts are not pertinent to this appeal but are set forth in both In re M.F. I and In re M.F. II. --------

{¶ 3} On February 28, 2020, the juvenile court entered an order denying appellant credit for the time she served at Carrington. It is from this denial that appellant now appeals, assigning one error for review:

I. The juvenile court erred when it failed to grant M.F. credit for the 126 days she was confined at Carrington in relation to the offense for which she was committed to [the Ohio Department of Youth Services], in violation of R.C. 2152.18(B); the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and, Article I, Section 16, Ohio Constitution.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶ 4} In her sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the juvenile court erred when it refused to grant appellant credit for the 126 days she was confined at Carrington in relation to the offense for which she was committed to the Ohio Department of Youth Services.

{¶ 5} R.C. 2152.18(B), governing a juvenile's entitlement to credit for confinement, requires that when a juvenile is committed to the custody of the department of youth services, the juvenile court must determine how much credit the juvenile is entitled to receive for confinement.

{¶ 6} Appellant asks this court to award her confinement credit; however, both appellant and the state acknowledge that appellant has completed the sentence to which the credit would apply. Consequently, appellant cannot receive credit toward the time she was ordered to serve.

{¶ 7} An appeal of confinement credit is moot when the appellant has already completed his or her sentence. State v. Krause, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106612, 2018-Ohio-5175, ¶ 8, citing State v. Reeves, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 28632, 28679, 28680, 28681, and 28682, 2017-Ohio-9139, ¶ 6, citing State v. Howard, 5th Dist. Richland No. 10 CA 23, 2010-Ohio-4729, ¶ 9. "This court is obligated to dismiss an action where the issues raised in that action are moot." In re Grand Jury Subpoena for Byrd, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106193, 2018-Ohio-3046, ¶ 7, citing In re Affidavits for Probable Cause, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103255, 2016-Ohio-856, ¶ 9, citing McBee v. Toledo, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1101, 2014-Ohio-1555.

{¶ 8} Appellant argues that an exception to the mootness doctrine applies here because the issues in the case sub judice are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." See State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Barnes, 38 Ohio St.3d 165, 527 N.E.2d 807 (1998), paragraph one of the syllabus. This exception has been limited by the Supreme Court of Ohio to "exceptional circumstances in which the following two factors are both present: (1) the challenged action is too short in its duration to be fully litigated before its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again." State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington, 89 Ohio St.3d 229, 231, 729 N.E.2d 1182 (2000).

{¶ 9} Neither factor is present in the instant matter. The issue of appellant's confinement credit related solely to the length of her sentence, not her underlying conviction. Appellant has served all of her time and is no longer subject to parole supervision. Consequently, there is not a reasonable expectation that she will be subject to the same action again.

{¶ 10} Appellant urges us to find that this appeal is not moot so that we may make a conclusive determination regarding confinement credit for time spent at Carrington because this issue has been the subject of several recent appeals before this court. However, after briefing in this matter had closed, this court had the opportunity to decide that very question in In re C.H., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109446, 2020-Ohio-5188, which was released on November 5, 2020.

{¶ 11} In In re C.H., the juvenile court had declined to grant confinement credit to C.H. for the time he spent at Carrington. In so doing, the juvenile court relied upon the proceedings in In re M.F., Cuyahoga J.C. No. DL-16-109093, in which an evidentiary hearing regarding Carrington had been held. In re C.H. at ¶ 11. We therefore permitted the parties in In re C.H. to supplement the appellate record in that case with the record from In re M.F. II, including the transcript of the evidentiary hearing regarding Carrington and the judgment entry where the juvenile court set forth its findings and ultimate determination that Carrington did not meet the test to constitute confinement under the statute.

{¶ 12} We reviewed both the record from In re C.H. and the supplemental record from In re M.F. II, in particular, the testimony elicited at the evidentiary hearing from the executive director of Carrington. We determined that, because of the restriction of the juveniles' personal liberties and the security measures in place, time spent at Carrington did, in fact, qualify as confinement for purposes of R.C. 2152.18(B). Consequently, In re C.H. is the controlling law in this appellate district with regard to confinement credit for time spent at Carrington.

{¶ 13} We have therefore already answered the underlying issue in the instant matter, and there is no reason to revisit it when appellant has already served her time and cannot be awarded confinement credit. Appellant's appeal is moot and must be dismissed.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 14} Appellant has completed her sentence, and her appeal of confinement credit is therefore moot. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed.

{¶ 15} Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. /s/_________
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR


Summaries of

In re M.F.

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
Dec 17, 2020
2020 Ohio 6745 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
Case details for

In re M.F.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE M.F. A Minor Child

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

Date published: Dec 17, 2020

Citations

2020 Ohio 6745 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)